Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 28 August 30 August >

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 no consensus. tedder (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proclick[edit]

Proclick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reads alarmingly like advertisement copy, and concerns a product that is by all evidence simply a brand-name iteration of a standard form of binding adequately covered by the articles about bookbinding methods. Guy Ruffian (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leona: Dreams[edit]

Leona: Dreams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable autobiography, fails WP:BK. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – NN book, lacking GHits of substance and with only a couple of GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BK. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: major release. Appealed to Leona official forum to help expand article. josh_odonnell (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen Lives Refugee[edit]

Stolen Lives Refugee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability of this book is not proved. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I believe that reasons for deletion have prevailed in this debate. The content is already covered in other articles, if anything else needs to be merged, notify me on my talkpage and I can provide the content. Tone 11:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq[edit]

List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While I commend the people who have worked on this list, and have cited nearly 1000 references, I believe that the list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as Wikipedia is not just a collection of information, and this list isn't really what I would call "encylcopedic". A related AfD to this that I just initiated is here. Killiondude (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and we have a more suitable article - Casualties of the Iraq War. I suggest we delete this one. DS (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom - raw data like this isn't encyclopedic. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I am sorry Jake Wartenberg and DS, but you are wrong. You said I am sure there are plenty of graphs and general statistics in Iraq War. and Indeed, and we have a more suitable article - Casualties of the Iraq War. Those articles do not have any definite numbers on insurgent casualties in the war. The Iraq war article doesn't have any graphs and general statistics and, actualy, the article Casualties of the Iraq War mentiones the number of dead insurgents only in one small paragraph and the number used had been taken from this very article. Except for this one article on the Net there is no one who has any publicly available verifiable number of insurgent casualties. The list may be a valuable information source under WP:LISTPURP. Also, Killiondude, you nominated this article for deletion and ignored the fact that the article had been already TWO times nominated for deletion in the previous three years, and both times the results of those discussions were to keep. I did some research on the article and found the article was nominated for deletion previously and the nominations were rejected. This all has already been discussed, the basis for the previous two nominations for deletion were similar to yours. And both times the nominations were rejected. For any editors who join in on this discussion please read the previous two discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Insurgents killed in Iraq and here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of insurgents killed in Iraq. In addition, Sherurcij has made a valid point that this is not in violation of WP:MEMORIAL since no names are listed and I also see no indiscrimination with this article.MidnightBomber (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "ignore" any facts. You can keep your assumptions of my actions to yourself. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No insult intended, there is no reason to get agitated. It's just that your actions were completely illogical to me since I read the previous two discussions and I thought you didn't read them since they made valid points on keaping the article. In any case I agree with all of the previous editors who voiced their keep opinions in the previous discussions and I am all for keep now. In addition, three editors in one previous discussion stated that it would be a total waste to have all the work that went into this article lost. And I would agree. If it bothers you that much why not simply change the structure of the article somehow, not delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidnightBomber (talk • contribs) 05:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that this editor has been confirmed as a sock puppet of permanently blocked editor User:Top Gun and been blocked. I have struck this vote as it was made in violation of a block. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This list is useful and is modeled as many others we have in the project. --Againme (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- For the first years of the Iraq war Bremer and Sanchez did everything they could to obfuscate the number of Iraqi civilian casualties. That pretty young American woman, who the US military claimed had been killed by an IED, went there to use Iraqi sources to try to document the scale of Iraqi civilian casualties. It is a very important topic. It is encyclopedic. We have lots of other encyclopedic articles that have the same ratio of text and statistics. Text articles have their place in an encyclopedia. And articles that contain a higher proportion of statistics also have their place in an encyclopedia. We have articles on Olympic records, and other lesser sports scores, which are similarly statistics rich. This is not an argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is the nature of an encyclopedia -- people want to look stuff up -- like casualty statistics. Geo Swan (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this sort of information is what "External links" sections are for. I too appreciate the hard work that's gone into this, but quite apart from its dubious encyclopaedic value, I'm concerned about the borderline WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR that seems to be going on by collating numbers from different sources. The article has no value as a research tool (ignoring the fact that this isn't what we're supposed to writing anyway; no self-respecting researcher would rely on someone else's data... especially on Wikipedia!), and its other suggested uses ("It also allows readers and researchers to investigate patterns in the type of tactics by insurgents and the coalition") would be better served by writing proper articles to cover these subjects. The heavy reliance on a single non-neutral source - antiwar.com - is also concerning. EyeSerenetalk 10:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have concerns of Synthesis/OR. (Aggregate information, eg monthly totals, would be more useful and possibly worth having but day to day reports: no) GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Apart from being unreadable because of the number of citations it does really add any value to the encyclopedia that could not be done with a summary in an article like Casualties of the Iraq War. Also support previous comments about OR and the like. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Again, this doesn't seem to have any purpose, being far too detailed, and as several people have highlighted above, the possible Original Research problems that the article appears to possess are also worrying. Skinny87 (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I fail to understand. How is it original research? As far as I see it it's not. It has sourced info from reliable resources verified with citation/reference links. You said that the article has a heavy reliance on a single non-neutral source - antiwar.com. I checked out that web-site. All of the reports on antiwar.com, which the references are based on, are themselves referenced by a large number of well-notable and neutral sources, like CNN, BBC news, AP, AFP, Reuters, Guardian UK, Al-Jazeera, China Post etc. Everybody should check that out. In addition, I also took a look at the previous two discussions on the deletion and one user said I do not believe that adding up claims by troop commanders constitutes original research or synthesis. I would agree with this. I fail to see how a summary in the article Casualties of the Iraq War could be done without the support of this article, it's simple impossible, there already is a summary, but it is based on this article. The importance of this article is too much. LiquidOcelot24 (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that this editor has been confirmed as a sock puppet of permanently blocked editor User:Top Gun and been blocked. I have struck this vote as it was made in violation of a block. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - raw data, synthesis. Buckshot06(prof) 21:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTPURP and EyeSerene. Just a dumping or raw data that holds little to no encylcopedic value, and has OR concerns. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposition on restructuring I have been looking over this article and, while I'm still for a strong keep, have been looking for a way to restructure the article (like I proposed before), to at least keep the most important information if the majority of editors are in the end for deleting. I myself think that a little bit too much references and raw information has been put into this, but again I think that too much important information is here as well. I think I found a way. Somebody (who is in the deleting votes) had proposed to do only a year-by-year, or at least month-by-month brakedown and not day-by-day. There is one reference (which is an exclusive U.S. military claim I mind you) that brakes down the deaths of insurgents by year up until September 22, 2007. We could use only this one reference for up to that date, my only concern is that there are 5,500 deaths more in the US military toll than in the researched data. Which I think we should, at least even un-referenced, mention to warn readers. As for 2008, I have been looking around on the Net and found one reference that states the exact number of insurgent deaths in 2008. And as for 2009, the Iraqi MoD has been sporadicly giving monthly tolls of insurgents this year. We could use that. As for all of the other references/links of various incidents, we delete them since we would have totals for specific years. Structured like this the article would be substantialy shortened. No disrispect to the editors that have done great work for this article but I think this is the best way so it is not in violation of the OR rule to which most deleting editors point out to. Any opinions on this? MidnightBomber (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that restructuring this list would calm other users' thoughts that this article violates WP:NOT. I'm don't think your suggestion would makes me change my mind that this article violates WP:NOT. I would like to point you, or anyone interested, in Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. It lists other wikis that would probably accept this, or any other article that en.wiki deems a violation of WP:NOT. Killiondude (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Than please explain to me how it would be in violation of WP:NOT? In this form the article wouldn't be in violation of the OR or Synthesis rule and wouldn't contain the massive raw data anymore, and those three things are the bigest reason why everybody who voted for delete voted for delete. We would delete all of the individual reports of deaths and save only the yearly totals, plus the yearly totals of suicide bombers killed. I'm not trying to change your mind, what I'm trying is to change the article so it would be within Wikipedia standards. Like this the article wouldn't be even a list anymore. We would change the name of the article even. It would be in essence an overview of year-by-year deaths of insurgents in Iraq, just like we have the articles of Coalition casualties in Afghanistan, which is an overviw of their deaths as well. As well as the British casualties in Afghanistan article, the Canadian, and the German. We would just call this article Insurgent casualties in Iraq (without the list, since it wouldn't be a list anymore). The purpose of a deletion nomination is not just to decide eather to keep or delete an article, but, if need be, to also change the article so the problems that existed and called for deletion be rectified. MidnightBomber (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a useful list. Maybe cited by media outlets. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYN. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A glob of statistics does not an encyclopedia article make. This is not a list as defined at Wikipedia:Lists#List articles: "The items on these lists include links to articles in a particular subject area, and may include additional information about the listed items." That said, WP:SYN does not apply here because it's just a bunch of stats without interpretation. Evil saltine (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first set of total casualties were calculated by adding up the figures in the casualty reports, which seems to be synthesis (and wrong given that it's inevitable that there will be double counting in the reports and some casualties won't be in the reports). Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As the consensus shows, it is not appropriate to have the whole list as the article. Tone 11:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article seems seems to be unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a memorial ground. While I respect the people who sacrificed their lives for our country, I do not believe that Wikipedia should have this list about each person who died in Iraq. Killiondude (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that this recently closed AfD should give some precedence to these types of articles, too. Killiondude (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Note that this is likewise up for deletion. Very sad, very well-referenced, totally inappropriate. DS (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This information is properly preserved on other websites. And even if we did have proper names/ages/hometowns of every Holocaust victim, there would still be deniers. The names/ages etc of the people who died in the attack on the Pentagon are all known... and there are already people who claim it didn't happen. And bear in mind, we (that is, WP) don't have lists of everyone who died in those attacks. I believe we did, but they were removed. Similarly, we don't have lists of every US soldier who died in Vietnam (even though such information has been recorded), or of every innocent victim of the Mumbai attacks, or etc etc. An itemized list of every soldier to have died in the Iraq war does not meet criteria for inclusion. DS (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its properly sourced.67.33.110.79 (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have nothing but the greatest respect for these people. That said, I don't find it to be particularly appropriate to an encyclopedia. It is more of a memorial to those people that died that something with any informational value. How about a list of names of everyone who has died of cancer? — Jake Wartenberg 23:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete undue recentism, developed-world bias, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Buckshot06(prof) 00:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom - raw data like this isn't encyclopedic. Other websites and books record the names of those who have died in this war, and there's no reason for Wikipedia to have articles such as these. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that "The list may be a valuable information source." (WP:LISTPURP) For example, if I wanted to figure out how many coalition troops were killed in a particular city, or how troop deaths correlate with age or location or rank, or any number of other questions, a list like this would be very useful. While other lists do exist, my (brief) search didn't find any containing as much data as this one. Gruntler (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, and not a memorial. Fences&Windows 01:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTMEMORIAL etc as above. This sort of information is what the "external links" section of articles is for. EyeSerenetalk 09:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per NOT:Memorial (even if effort had been made to bring this article to a higher standard: wikilinking, table sort function, referencing) it would still fail on that criteria. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not appear to add any value to the encyclopedia and could be replaced by a simple link to an external list in the relevant overview article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With all due respect to those on the list, this sort of thing can be found on external websites; but perhaps more importantly, it doesn't really serve any purpose here. Knowing how many were killed, indeed, but their names and other details seem too...wellm detailed for wikipedia. Skinny87 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. We use lists as a way of guiding readers to Wikipedia articles with something in common, not as a way of collecting bits and pieces of information from hundreds or thousands of newspaper articles. There are lots and lots of other wikis on the Web; anyone willing to collect and post this information elsewhere is welcome to do so. But keeping this list at Wikipedia would be a very bad precedent: List of U.S. state legislators in 2008; List of Chief Financial Officers of major corporations in 2007; List of restaurants reviewed by the New York Times in 2009; List of bills signed into law in 2005 by the Virginia state governor. All of these would be totally supportable by reliable sources, and all of them would be clear violations of WP:NOT - Wikipedia isn't a guide, and it isn't a place to collect bits of related information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please note that the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians says that every person who ever served in a U.S. state legislature or its equivalent in other countries, is presumed to be notable, even if only one time for 8 weeks . So a list of a subset of them, like for one state in one year, is not so clearly nonnotable as you appear to believe. Edison (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Western bias and recentism. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and most of those above. This is a true violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, is insensitive and unencyclopedic. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki to Wikisource, where lists of every person killed in every historical war could be maintained. With all respect for those who fought and died for their countries in a good war, Wikipedia is not a memorial or a directory. This war is not more encyclopedic than the World Wars or various other historic wars. Edison (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTMEMORIAL. Wish it could be transwikied somewhere, but a cursory glance at Wikisource's criterion suggests it's a no-go. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Gates Records[edit]

Big Gates Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable record label that hasn't produced anything notable. Small label founded by the brother of a notable rapper. Everything the rapper has done that charted was done under other labels. A short list of non-notable artists in their stable. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources (usually just a passing mention when talking about the rapper who is no longer with the label). Has been tagged for notability since Nov. 2008. Article contains no reliable sources. Written by a WP:SPA (Biggatesfan) who has done nothing but edit to promote Big Gates or his brother. Fails WP:CORP Niteshift36 (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge/redirect would be an option if a targed article existed. Since it does not, it's a delete. If the content is needed alter, let me know. Tone 11:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morganville, Texas[edit]

Morganville, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. This is a fictional location with no assertion of notability. Yes, I realize notability is not inherited, but surely non-notability is: the parent article about the book series that takes place in this location doesn't even exist! No prejudice against creating a sourced, well-written series article in compliance with WP:WAF, but that hypothetical article should not borrow from this in-universe treatment. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with The Morganville Vampires article or Rachel Caine entry. There's no separate Wikipedia entry for Pencey Prep, the fictional school Holden Caulfield went to in The Catcher In The Rye. If that fictional place isn't famous enough for its own Wikipedia article, then Morganville, Texas definitely isn't either. TruthGal (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kind of odd that the author considered the fictional town to be more worthy of an article than the series of books that are set in the town. An article called The Morganville Vampires (book series) would be more likely to survive, with some real world information to go with the fantasy. The town itself is not notable independently of the book series. Mandsford (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to The Morganville Vampires as the article has strayed far from my original intent to describe the fictional setting for this series of books. That would also allow a lot of the detail repeated (improperly) in the Rachel Caine article to be merged to the renamed article. I reject the notion that no fictional place could have an article because nobody has gotten around to creating another unrelated article, especially when it's the setting for a New York Times best-selling series of novels, but must agree that this article needs more cleanup effort than I can provide at the moment. - Dravecky (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Recordings[edit]

Lewis Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteWeak keep. The label has some notable artists and releases, but I found no significant coverage to suggest that this meets our notability criteria. --Michig (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The label has some notable artists and releases. 3 references on google news Ikip (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think those sources are referring to this label. And it doesn't look to me like the artists are notable. Cinnamon is a bluelink to the spice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree. Just as a movie studio is notable for making hit films, so is a record company notable for having hit artists. Dream Focus 16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily say "hit artists" is justified here. Edan is clearly notable, Andrew Thompson probably so, Mighty Casey doubtful, others probably not. There's a fair amount of coverage of Edan's releases, but the coverage says little or nothing about the label. If any significant coverage can be found please add it. Perhaps against my better judgment, I'm changing my view to a very weak keep as while our guidelines suggest deletion, this article adds information that could be of benefit to the reader - the information is verifiable via reliable sources and it would be ok as a stub. There is some coverage in the Chicago Tribune (5 May 2006) which mentions Mike Lewis starting the label to release Edan's music, so there's at least one source available.--Michig (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I can userfy the conetnt if the author wishes so. Let me know. Tone 11:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2015 hurricane season[edit]

2015 hurricane season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL, no article for 2014 season etc. Also same info included in the 2009 Atlantic Hurricane Season. AtheWeatherman 22:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will update it when I learn of any retired names so please don't delete it. This is my first article and it took a long time to make it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecookmiester8 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm fairly certain that there's an article that has the names that are reserved for hurricanes for 2010, etc., although I don't know where it is. And as the old saying goes, if there ain't, there oughta be. This would be a logical redirect to that article. Since, as I understand it, the 2009 names will be the 2015 names (with the exception of the ones that get retired and replaced), the list of future names would be edited the same way as this article. Mandsford (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wonder why wasn't it speedily deleted as nonsense-equivalent (can't talk about unpredictable factual event which will happen 6 yrs ahead). Materialscientist (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, the author wasn't making predictions about what the weather would be like in 2015, regardless of the title. Essentially, this was an attempt to list the names reserved for the 2015 Atlantic hurricane season. Although I think that this information is available elsewhere, and that this article is unnecessary, it's not unverifiable and it most certainly is not "nonsense". Mandsford (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – According the the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, "...names [are] utilized in [a] six-year cycle of names. Except for any retired names, in 2015 the 2009 list will be repeated." See [1]. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This information, and that for the years 2010 through 2014, is in Lists of tropical cyclone names and should continue to be maintained there. To Thecookmiester8: You have my sympathy! Writing part of all of an article before discovering it is redundant happens to everyone who edits here long enough. Congratulations on getting it on your first try! Please help maintain the Lists of tropical cyclone names. Peter Chastain (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • userfy or delete per all, and since the original author appears to care. Thinboy00 @227, i.e. 04:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy is perhaps the best option here. That way the creator won't feel their work has been completely wasted.. Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandalism[edit]

Mandalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

suggest deleting page under WP:NEO, WP:NOTDICT and WP:MADEUP. Basically, it's a pure dicdef, with no substantial prose except the definition. It's about a word that does not yet appear in dictionaries, and therefore possibly made up Kingpin13 (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wish it were. I have already moaned about this matter several times. Some of the readings of G1 are insanely broad, to me "nonsense" means a string of words or letters with no meaning, not the perjorative, eg "that's nonsense" which means something like "foolishness". Hairhorn (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... I'm pretty sure it's a play on "vandalism" and "man".... Hairhorn (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • snowball We could transwiki it to wiktionary and then delete it there, but this is faster. Thinboy00 @229, i.e. 04:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 11:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Henry (New Zealand)[edit]

Brian Henry (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a challenged speedy-- checking it, I consider the person non-notable, but there are references, though not very satisfactory ones, and only to what appears a rather routine career as a lawyer. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 23:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Henry Family of New Zealand, which itself could benefit from a massive cleanup. Unschool 00:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, easily meets WP:N, country's largest newspaper The New Zealand Herald has 161 exact matches, many of which involve his client, former foreign minister Winston Peters. XLerate (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:N in my opionion. Article could do with a good cleanup. It's always nice when notability is obvious from reading the article!Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probable Keep - While being Winston's lawyer doesn't confer notability in itself, it has resulted in a lot of news coverage and I'm sure I've seen an extended profile of him somewhere in the past. Article needs cleanup and inline citations. dramatic (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Henry was a key player in the biggest political controversy in New Zealand last year, around NZ First donations and his involvement in the Winebox inquiry was extensive. The article clearly needs improvement, but I can assure DGG his legal career has been anything but "routine". Dean B (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's had a lot of press coverage over at least two issues (one of them very protracted). As Dean B says, the article clearly needs improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing prisoners of Chile[edit]

Missing prisoners of Chile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose this list for deletion per WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:IINFO. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MIR (Chile) members assassinated by the Pinochet regime, a similar case just decided as delete; no doubt many of the same arguments will be raised here, I hope more concisely. See also a discussion taking place at WT:NOT#Requested clarification of meaning of Not:Memorial. An additional reason for not establishing a precedent for lists of this kind is the danger that they will be posted for partisan purposes contrary to WP:SOAPBOX; I do not suggest that is the case here, but we should consider the possibility that lists of the dead will be posted competitively by supporters of the different sides in current and past conflicts. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal international language center[edit]

Montreal international language center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline advert has been marked for questionable notability since October 2007. There have been no substantive additions since then. The page is unreferenced; the only references I find that are not related to the center itself are lists of language schools. Cnilep (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is real enough, more often called "Centre international de langues de Montréal". English home page here Should be Centre, not Center. Part of LaSalle college. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search show plenty of references in lists of language schools, as stated by nominator, but nothing else. I don't see this as significant coverage. The QCTop source looks like a paid listing to me. It is a school, not a college or university, so not automatically notable. It would be incorrect to redirect to the sister organization LaSalle College, and the owner LaSalle College Group does not have an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It should at least be purged of fluff like "where students are in the centre of the action" and "for those looking to climb the educational, the corporate ladder" – and moved to a more correct title. —Tamfang (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to LaSalle College. Hairhorn (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a section to the article on LaSalle College giving "LaSalle College Group" subsidiaries including this school. The result looks like an ad - don't like it. This article could now be redirected to LaSalle College, I suppose. Is it any more notable than a driving school? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 11:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lodestar (band)[edit]

Lodestar (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been marked for questionable notability since October 2007. Few significant additions have been made since, and there are no sources. A search of news archives finds two mentions of a band called Lodestar in the US and one in Singapore, but these appear to be different bands from the one described here. Fails WP:Notability (music). Cnilep (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, I believe that Cnilep was alluding to Music#5 in his comment above yours. The problem, I think, is that the claim to having two albums released on a major lablel has to date only been asserted, not verified. Unschool 15:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a ref from Discogs and an article from Kerrang! magazine from when they supported Tool. Hope this helps! Lugnuts (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - two CDs on a major label. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The one I added to the article a few days ago. Lugnuts (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD G3 - obvious hoax. --Angelo (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sizan De Asies Ronaldo[edit]

Sizan De Asies Ronaldo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person has references online but there is no verifiable information that this is a real notable person. Most references seem made up, the information is also blatantly false, there is no such player listed for any of the teams he is mentioned as having appeared for. The article is also extremely poorly written. Stochil (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Definite hoax Spiderone 08:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD G1, blatant hoax. A quick Google search brings up nothing for a Russian under-21 international footballer by that name, compared to Anton Sosnin here. --Jimbo[online] 12:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as utter bollocks, possibly speedy as blatant vandalism. A Russian international born in Greece with a Portuguese name? At least make your hoaxes believable, children...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obvious hoax. Jogurney (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Poorly written hoax. ---DThomsen8 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - under G3, a blatant hoax. A Russian player, born in Greece, but with a Brazilian name, who has appeared over 20 times for his country despite being only 18? A big no-no! GiantSnowman 17:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ryan Anderson[edit]

Patrick Ryan Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP; no notable roles. SummerPhD (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alexf(talk) 14:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alis Peña Payan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alis Peña Payan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability asserted. Ghits are mostly wiki links. Possible hoax. All content was created by the creator, then the speedy tag was removed by an IP. So, I have to AfD it. The IP may be related to this. This was Afd'ed on Aug 11, and the results was a speedy delete. I would also like to WP:SALT.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alis Payan

possible hoaxes discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joanna_Stands_Strong and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joanne_(novel) Clubmarx (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: No more notable than the last time around. Favonian (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete As recreation of previously deleted material. Unable to find coverage in reliable sources. Agree on the SALTing. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G4, and salt. Still non-notable. talkingbirds 16:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably speedy. No assertion of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Classic case of WP:CSD#G4, so tagged. Unlike a WP:PROD, you are allowed to replace a speedy tag that's been removed by someone else. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLPI[edit]

PLPI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was tempted to tag this {{db-hoax}} but I think it may have some basis in reality. However no reliable sources are quoted. It is non-notable, used only in Quadel InfoCenter which I am also nominating for deletion. (It is a stupid idea anyway: a browser which fails to load 100% of a page is simply a not-work browser.) — Sgroupace (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete It's a spam article redirecting users to the authors personal webpage apparently the author himself created these apps Coi+non notable+spam--Notedgrant (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quadel InfoCenter[edit]

Quadel InfoCenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly non-notable and possibly not yet released browser. No references provided. The author, user:Ravenperch provides a link to his website which is still under construction. I am also nominating PLPI by the same author for deletion. Sgroupace (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 All My Children. That is the best solution here. No need to delete before redirecting. Tone 11:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brot Monroe[edit]

Brot Monroe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no sources at all not enough story to sustain its own article and really a non notable charecter if it wasent for the military thing i nominate we delete this page and move the info to the all my children recruing page BigPadresDUDE (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoids Remodelling Sets[edit]

Zoids Remodelling Sets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a trivial list of toy sets that doesn't have anything to assert any sort of notability or importance. TTN (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Users edit history is mostly creating articles on these toys, all of it unreferenced and promotional Francium12 (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 20:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, non-sourced Intelligentsium 21:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable and probably original research. -- nips (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPoint[edit]

WikiPoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I haven't been able to find any sources that attest to the importance or significance of this software; fails WP:N. Incidentally, it isn't mentioned in the three 'see also' pages. News results here don't help. Delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only users who have "!voted" to delete the article have been blocked for either disruption or sockpuppetry. Therefore, I am speedily closing the AfD, with no prejudice towards renomination. NW (Talk) 23:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiq Shinwari[edit]

Rafiq Shinwari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy Delete Despite being tagged for meeting wikipedia's notability guideline's requirement, the articl isn't imporved and cleaned. Infact, it seem non-notable to me. I have een through some of the articles created by the same edtior and experienced that after creating it he leaves the article orphan. It seems he is in race of creating articles regardless of wether notable or non-notable. --LineofWisdom (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After the ref addition, no longer an A-7. Note that AfD isn't for speedy deletions; you want a {{db}} template for that. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 15:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KeepThe AFD is a joke and based on complete bad faith. The user LineofWisdom is venting his venom against me through nominating my genuine articles on Pashto's legendary singers. What a shame. -- MARWAT  16:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article from Pakistan Press International demonstrates notability. I would like to know when and where (and under what circumstances) he was born and died, though. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nominator has been blocked indefinitely for disruption. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 23:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Street (politician)[edit]

Sidney Street (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and an unsuccessful election campaign doesn't make a politician notable. I have not been able to find good sources that would help article development. Delete.Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally fails WP:POLITICIAN. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Valentine[edit]

Jimmy Valentine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC, at least as far as the article currently stands, and as far as web searches go.

Article was PRODded, removed by anon IP without explanation. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 19:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Crockspot (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jimmy Valentine is notable and influencial in sub culture if for no other reason than he worked with Sky Saxon and is the only artist Sky ever produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.44.155 (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC) — 76.16.44.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Jimmy Valentine is worthy of a wiki entry...though he may not have any chart topping hits he does have a significant number of fans as well as widespread notoriety. His work with Sky Saxon and Aaron Peirsol as well as an organizer of the Michigan Peace Fest, the Chicago Peace fest and Hoodilidoo festivals alone should earn him this. He is well known amongst musicians famous and otherwise from coast to coast. I met him and he seems a little crazy but in a good way. I saw him at Hoodilidoo in Herod Illinois and there was not a single person out of over a thousand attendees who did not know who Jimmy Valentine is. He's not Joe Rockstar. He's just a wild musician mad poet type and very accessible and friendly. Thegrubwich (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)— Thegrubwich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I'm tired of this. Let's be reasonable people and just take a step back for a second. What needs to be done to make this right? Jimmy is deserving of some mention, more than just a line on Sky Saxon's page. What do we need to do to make this a sound Wiki article. Jimmy has more traces of a notable career than some other artists on Wikipedia. Amie Street is a well known Indie Label. Also YouTube is to journalism as what Wikipedia is to information, so saying youtube clips are sub-par is hypocritical. Please stop the petty bickering and use that thing between your ears thats called a brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegrubwich (talk • contribs) 03:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC) {{spa|Thegrubwich[reply]
  • Delete - Notability not established to meet general notability guidelines or music notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to changing vote if sources become available as per the notability guidelines for musicians. Out of the four references given in the article, two are for the record company so are not relaible sources; one is a link to a chart archive site which I suspect is not a reliable source, and produces no hits for "Jimmy Valentine" in any case; the fourth is a link to a swimming website. This is not the standard of sources that are necessary to verify notability. My good-faith search both on the net and in books (I edit wikipedia while in a public library) produces no significant coverage in reliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and the the SPA's WP:ILIKEIT reasoning isn't helping it pass. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stewart (musician)[edit]

Paul Stewart (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Pointless article about a drummer who is only notable for being a member of The Feeling, in which article the little that there is to say about him can be better covered. The prod was removed with "subject is most likely independently notable (see http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Paul+Stewart%22+drummer+%22the+feeling%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en) - if not he should be redirected to the band's page, not deleted" - I don't see anything in the news results that suggests independent notability via either the general or subject specific (WP:MUSIC) criteria, and I don't see "Paul Stewart (musician)" as a likely search term, so it is unlikely the redirect would be useful - an entry on the Paul Stewart disambiguation page pointing to The Feeling would suffice. Michig (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Like I said it the deprod, he is most likely notable. Being independently notable doesn't mean he has to have produced music outside the band or anything like that - it means he has to have been the subject of multiple RS. If those RS about talking about him within the context of the band, they still count as long as they are talking about him specifically. That appears to be the case here. His generic name makes it harder to find sources, but said sources do appear to exist.

The article isn't "pointless" as it is the correct place to house biographical information about Paul Stewart - such information is not appropriate in the band's article.

However, if the nom felt strongly about it he could have just redirected and I wouldn't have objected. The page has over 20 incoming links and deleting the page would simply break those links for no reason. It would be a waste of time and effort to go and change all those links to point to the band, when a simply redirect can do the job. Additionally, the redirect would serve as a place holder in case he gained (more) notability in the future. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the incoming links are related to either The Feeling or his wife. Why is biographical information about band members not appropriate in the band's article? If we had a significant amount of relevant information that has nothing to do with the band, then that would be better in a separate article. If all we have to say about him is where he went to school, who he's married to and who his influences are, I don't see any convincing argument for keeping this - the links could be redirected in a couple of minutes, and I'm yet to see any reliable sources that give significant coverage to this person rather than the band he is a member of. If you can come up with reliable sources that discuss Paul Stewart beyond his involvement in The Feeling or even specifically about what he has done as a member of The Feeling then we have a case for an article. Otherwise, I don't see why we should keep this just in case someone writes such coverage about him in the future.--Michig (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we disagree about whether there is enough coverage for an article or not. However, redirects are extremely cheap. We normally don't delete them without good reason to do so. You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just agreeing a redirect was acceptable rather than forcing an AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was at Paul Stewart and there are no other 'Paul Stewart's then I agree a redirect would be in order, as anyone searching for Paul Stewart would have arrived at the appropriate article, but given that the links to the article are already from other articles about the band or their releases, links back to the band in those isn't going to be useful, and nobody is realistically going to search for Paul Stewart (musician) in order to arrive at The Feeling's article, so what purpose would a redirect serve? You could have saved me and yourself a lot of time by just allowing the prod that had already been on the article for the requisite 7 days to reach its logical conclusion and allowing this article with minimal content to be deleted, but if you didn't agree with that then fair enough. I would not object to this being moved to Paul Stewart (drummer) or Paul Stewart (The Feeling) and then redirected to The Feeling if that is acceptable to you. If you would object to the article being redirected because you believe the content merits a separate article then we disagree on this and the discussion needs to continue.--Michig (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, it is best to let the community decide. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His work with his wife Sinead Quinn is separate from The Feeling, so he now has a profile independent of The Feeling and this justifies his own article. Cjc13 (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks valid sources and says nothing that couldn't be said in The Feeling. Not notable as an independent artist.--Sabrebd (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not a pointless article, but about a drummer who is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Herbal Pharmacopoeia and Therapeutic Compendium[edit]

American Herbal Pharmacopoeia and Therapeutic Compendium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I declined the speedy delete because a Google Book search turned up evidence of notability: [2]. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although this Compendium is found in many books (listed in Pastor Theo's link), they all appear to be references/footnotes for various herbs. What is required is a source that says the Compendium is notable. Abductive (reasoning) 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google books indicates it's a notable reference. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Google Books link turns up a lot of coverage. If so many books are using this Compendium as a source, that should say something about its value. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Must be a notable organization if 117 books use it as a reference. Dream Focus 02:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The American Herbal Pharmacopoeia's website says it was founded in 1994 (see Overview), but has produced just 17 monographs (see Titles), the prime way the organization says it fulfills its mission (see also Overview page). The total is quite short of the organization's goal of 300 (see also Overview page). The organization has a post office box address, and the email contact address is not the same domain as its web site. The two address that turn up on a Google Maps search, one of which is given as the shipping address on the organization's website (see Contact), appear to be private residences.
    Only one reference in the first 100 hits of a Google Search comments on the organization, as opposed to its products, or is not a listing. The reference is from the blog of a company called Blue Poppy, who are a publisher and merchant selling books, herbs, and Chinese medicine products (see Blue Poppy History). The comments do give effusive praise. On balance, the evidence is does not seem to meet the test at WP:GNG of that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --papageno (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can't say it fails "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." -MBHiii (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coverage? It's been cited, not covered. It's a major difference. Abductive (reasoning) 15:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point taken, but here's just one -MBHiii (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. The reference says the organization "lacks government recognition", then asserts that their works (as opposed to the organization) are accepted as standards by many organizations, without naming any, or providing any references. --papageno (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and papageno. Fails WP:ORG, while it may be cited, it lacks coverage by reliable secondary sources. - Crockspot (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per iron holds fails wp:org--Notedgrant (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Google books indicates it's a notable reference. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No rationale for deletion here, so I am redirecting without deletion as a compromise between "merge" (no can do, no sourced content) and "delete and redirect" (violates WP:PRESERVE, no benefit in deleting potentiall useful revisions).  Skomorokh  12:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra von Engelhardt[edit]

Aleksandra von Engelhardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

completely non-notable. Articles that contain nothing more than "born, got married, popped a sprog or two and died" do not warrant inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have seen a couple of these start to pop up at AfD over the past week or so. Has there been a larger community discussion about the notability of...nobility? NW (Talk) 12:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    General consensus is that members of the nobility are not notable by default, which (I assume) has its basis in "notability is not inherited". Exceptions are made for Royal families and members of the British peerage pre-1999, who were members of the House of Lords and so fall under WP:POLITICIAN. Ironholds (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Franciszek Ksawery Branicki. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Franciszek Ksawery Branicki. Nothing sourced that can be merged. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per bridgeplayer. Not notable enough for standalone article, and lacks sources. Crockspot (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Franciszek Ksawery Branicki. She had a portrait painted of her. That tells us that she was once considered important, even it she isn't today.--Auric (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it means her husband had money. Lord Mansfield's wife had a portrait painted of her, and she did nothing but get married and die. Ironholds (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odysseus (e-mail client)[edit]

Odysseus (e-mail client) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Needs to be an Unremarkable Product CSD. Does not assert notability, and is improperly named anyway. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable and no assertion of notability. The only outside reference I found to it was this article, which doesn't really establish notability. The company that produced the product, Infinity Data Systems, doesn't appear to be notable either, so there's no indication of notability from that. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, NN. - Crockspot (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as bad-faith nomination by a user blocked as a vandal. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 17:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankenstein (adventure game)[edit]

Frankenstein (adventure game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources Cowboy! (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak conditional keep if some sources can be found before closure. May have some notability in a historical sense. Otherwise, delete. Crockspot (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why was this flagged? There are three sources listed in the External References section, each of which leads to further magazine scans and articles. 2fort5r (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources seem legitimate and notable. Ikip (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stoner Witch (Band)[edit]

Stoner Witch (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Article was created 8 August 2009 by its only contributor, and this is his/her only article. Google search for "Stoner Witch" brings up 20,800 hits, but it is clear that most of these refer to an unrelated album of that name by the Melvins; others relate to pages on Facebook etc by people using 'Stone Witch' as a log-in name. The most useful link is to the band's own self-written page at Encyclopedia Metallum [3] which reveals the information that this band has recorded three demos - hardly notable. Emeraude (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should have said that this outfit seems to fail WP:BAND, at least from the info given in the article. Emeraude (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was in a band that self released two full-length albums and an ep, and was written up in the local press a few times. Unfortunately for us, that's as far as we ever got, so I've never tried to construct an article. We were/are below the radar, and this band is too. Delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Epically fails WP:BAND. - Crockspot (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Students for Peace and International Development[edit]

Students for Peace and International Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable organization. No ghits. A person other than the creator removed the db tag. However, the article has been deleted twice in the last couple of days per A7. The person who removed the tag also has a speedy deletion notice on their talk page. So, this seems like a speedy delete to me but I wanted to follow the delete rules per the current version. Clubmarx (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Editor that removed the speedy tag appears to be the creator of the original article that was speedy deleted earlier. It was then re-created by another editor and was speedy deleted. 2nd editor recreated, the article was tagged and the first editor removed the tag. Talk page claims it to be a national organisation but supplies no references. noq (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The organization seems to be legitimate with noble goals. User promised to expended it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmin morocco (talk • contribs) 19:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC) — Jasmin morocco (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: The organisation does not appear to exist outside of Wikipedia. Where do you find it "seems to be legitimate"? noq (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was published in Arabic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmin morocco (talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would an organization with an English name, from an American university, publish in Arabic? If you can give us the Arabic transliteration, we might be able to find some Arabic hits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it is so well known, I would expect something on google. It seems funny that both keeps are by users who have not edited before. Are you aware WP:SOCKPUPPET? noq (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is about notability and references, not the intent of the organization. I don't think anyone has said anything negative about the aims of this group. Clubmarx (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear user, it is easy to kill every project if somebody desires to do so. I wrote in the discussion board that I will provide the necessary reference within the next three days or so. Regardless of that, you and one more user constantly opposed the article and nominated it for deletion. After all, it is comfortable to sit in front of the PC 24/7 and criticize projects created by others, and it is difficult to create something by yourself. A bit of good will would be here more helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Bernet (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 7th Studio Album (Faith Hill Album)[edit]

Untitled 7th Studio Album (Faith Hill Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Untitled, unrelease, unreferenced album. Fails WP:HAMMER. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator (and thus far only delete voter) has been blocked for disruption. No prejudice towards renomination. NW (Talk) 00:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khayal Muhammad[edit]

Khayal Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Strong Delete First of all, the person seems to be an obsucre . non-notable. Secondly, the article is lacking citations / references for all the claims made. In short, all the article have no sentences which doesn't needs a referene. Third, the article requires clean-up. Even after informing the creator / author about all the situation, the article was ignored to be provided any citation. In myumble opinion, above charges are enough for any article to be speedy deleted. Warm Regards, --LineofWisdom (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pretty much everything in the articles is borne by this article. This piece from PPI calls him the King of Ghazals. He has also won the National Film Award (of Pakistan) for singing per this. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 17:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 17:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This nom appears to be a continuation of this discussion at WP:ANI. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 19:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am honestly short of words to express my regret on this AFD nomination by a user who is in constant war with me upon his vandalism of another article created by me known as Marwat. This is by all means yet another bad faith AFD by this user as the subject singer is considered as a Legend in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The user LineofWisdom has been blocked for using sockpuppets and has been using foul language and dragging my family as well as an administrators family into these discussions. Looking at the quality of his written English I can only sympathize at his assertion about my English by placing a “Clean Up” tag atop this particular article. You know this is what happens when you don’t impose indefinite block on vandals like him at the first place. I can only offer my commiseration at his dyslexia. I can retaliate by placing AFDs at all the articles of his relatives but I won't lower my level that much. I leave it to the administrators to decide this issue. This AFD is shouting for nothing else but a Speedy Keep.-- MARWAT  02:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why personal I am once again strange and astonished o see that rather defnding the nomination Marwatt has started attacking me personally, once again. Administrators / Opertaors, whoever I am, whatever I have done in the past or even doing now will not lead this article to be notable. We must remain to write or submit feedbacks regarding the nomination, not to be personal. The author of this article Marwatt has even single line in defence of this article, except attacking me in several lines? Please note it. --LineofWisdom (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have overhauled the article, added some sources. Clearly notable on all counts - independent sources, many fans, awards etc. Also, although Youtube entries are not usually evidence of notability, I think this list is convincing Aymatth2 (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep, especially after Aymatth2's edits — the awards section itself should show beyond all doubt that he is notable. In addition, this appears to be a bad-faith nomination by a now-blocked user. Close? Shreevatsa (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom withdrawn with no remaining delete votes. WP:SK, #1. Protonk (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tchibo[edit]

Tchibo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Interesting story of rise and fall, corporate restructuring, etc., but I can't find multiple substantial references to this thing and its claims of notability sound like generic market-fluff and aren't cited. DMacks (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Editorial note: Article subject to COI spam and related vandalism lately. Not a reason to delete, but check history to make sure you're reading an encyclopediac version of this article rather than an ad. DMacks (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to this revision and keep. This can be sourced from Google News (see link above). -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The network (under Tchibo and Eduscho brands) is omnipresent in German-speaking countries. 12000 employees and 3.6 bn euro sales in Germany alone. Coffee itself could be better, though. NVO (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. DMacks, check your firewall. The first search at the first newspaper site brings 87 hits [4]. Some are duds, some spot on: [5]. NVO (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep 17,200 google news hits obviously notable. Ikip (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of Germany's most important coffee companies and extremely well-known brand. — Kusma talk 18:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to meet notability criterion, using google news. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NVO, and also agree the coffee could be better. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The company may not be known in the US (unsurprising as it doesn't trade there) but it is a well-known (i.e. notable) firm in Europe. However the article was not well written. I have carried out an initial revision to improve the style, but it really needs some proper references. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tchibo is an institution in Germany. 7-figure Google hits. --Boson (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. Without speaking German or having certain books available, the now-included refs that strongly support corp-notability aren't available to me. DMacks (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments of others, this does seem to be quite notable, plenty of news mention of it. I'd like to remind the nominator, its best not to send something to the AFD before checking Google and Google news for it. [6] Please do so in the future. Dream Focus 01:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Reiss (fashion retailer)[edit]

David Reiss (fashion retailer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person with biographical references. Article and references does not indicate notability. Preferably redirect to Reiss (brand) if possible. E Wing (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Definitely notable as shown in the article as this cited statement shows; the last big owner-founder entrepreneur left in British retail. I have converted the inline html references to inline citations. There are plenty more references to be found using Google News or Nexis that assert his notability from RS such as the Times, Telegraph, Independent and industry magazines. The blog by his nephew is a dubious source but as it is used for non controversial family history probably acceptable. I cam across this on new article patrol and am frankly baffled as to why it has been nominated here as the sources were already in the article. It could do with more work to improve the style but there should be no question of deletion. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 11:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Krause[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tina Krause (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress, fails WP:BLP. Frmatt (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I was on the fence regarding this one until I checked out the prior AfD which made mention of her filmography, which I checked on IMDB. Over 70 films certainly seems notable to me. I'm also unclear how it fails WP:BLP. Qinael (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not a reliable source, and considering the rampant meat/sockpuppetry going on in the related AfD, it seems far more likely the IMDB entries are either invalid or nothing but low-budget films. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're referring to here; I didn't see any indication of improper action in the previous AfD on this article. The conclusion of that was that "a prolific actor is notable." I'm not aware of anything that has changed her status as that, or what evidence the claim that the IMDB filmography is "more likely either invalid or nothing but low-budget films" is based upon. I'm not comfortable deleting an article on a "probably not important." In any event, WP:PEOPLE stipulates "2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." There's really no question that she's prolific, low-budget or not, and the inclusion of "cult following" in point 2 would to me indicate that B-rated films are not automatically discarded for this criteria. - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 02:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said related (as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Drunken Dead Guy) not previous. There is no reliable sources showing she has a significant "cult" following nor that she has made prolific contributions to the field purely based on IMDB listings (which, again, is not a reliable source). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright. I'm not sure that AfD is related, myself, other than the fact that she did appear in that film. I think that you're misunderstanding the general principle stated in WP:MOVIE that notability (not reliability - important difference) is not implied by a film's (not an actor's) inclusion in such "comprehensive film guides" for the reason that everything, notable or not, is listed due to their comprehensive nature. As the Note expounding on the point states, "Many of these sources can provide valuable information, and point to other sources, but in themselves do not indicate a notable subject." While a movie being listed in IMDB does not make it notable, an actresses filmography is something that can be used to define prolific contributions. IMDB is most certainly a reliable source, and virtually the definition of it regarding statistics such as filmographies. The rule simply says that it does not automatically confer notability by inclusion therein. - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 16:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not misunderstanding it at all and sorry, but no, IMDB is NOT reliable source per community consensus. And no, its filmography can not be used to define "prolific contributions" - beyond not being reliable, the roles have no context and could, for all you know, be nothing but extra roles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Link or reference, please? - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 22:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS, WP:FILMS, WP:MOSFILMS, Wiki search in the Wiki realm and you'll find TONS of discussion at the films project, the RSN, RS itself, etc all upholding this consensus - IMDB is a user-edited site and not a reliable source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All discusssions about the very narrow margin of consensus to not accept IMDB as a source aside... it specifically is NOT user-edited. As for her list of credits, it is not neccessary to argue about IMDB and citing... consensus at Project Films has accepted that the credits roll of each of the 70+ films is acceptable verification that she has been in them. As for "prolific"... it would be up to individual editor's to themselves determine if 78 feature films in 15 years is prolific or not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the first two of those make no mention of IMDB whatsoever. The third one says in the discussion of Cast listings, and I quote, "The key is to provide plenty of added value "behind the scenes" background production information, without simply re-iterating IMDB." In other words, the only reference to IMDB in those links is one validating the content of the site as far as casting, with the note that more detail should be added to those basic statistics when forming an article on the cast. On top of that, I did some second-level browsing of the links on the second reference you gave and found exactly what I have been saying so far; IMDB, while unreliable for certain things, is a reliable source for establishing filmographies. Note this archived discussion and Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb, which, unlike the above, are actually discussing IMDB. A filmography is all that is being cited in this AfD to establish "prolific contributions," and that is well within the realm of IMDB's reliability. If it was being sourced for biographical information or other details, yes, there would be a problem as per the above references. Filmography is a hard fact, and that is the extent of IMDB's usage here. One, I might add, for which it had been agreed to be a reliable source - the only thing the community agreed on clearly, I should note. If you've got something else (specific, please) that says otherwise, please let me know. So far, my search has turned up what I've shown above. - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The individual in question is fairly well known in the realms of horror movie and independent film making. Deletion would seem to be counter-productive. TVPowers (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely fails WP:BLP. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you specify some particular points in which it fails? Thanks, - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 02:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A lot of single name roles (read that as usually a small role) or roles as "White Trash Woman", "Snotty Socialite #1" or "Acid Woman in Black" in mostly straight to video films don't make someone look like they pass WP:ENT to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly, like many actors, she has some roles in the beginning of her career that were simply descriptives... IE: as 'Victim' in Virgin Sacrifices (1996), or 'Woman in the forest' in Quicksand at Deadman's Creek (1999). But with respects... almost all her roles, including those many where she was the star, are 'single name' characters. For this genre, that'e not a strike, but an expectation. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:ENT, albeit it in a niche area where Wikipedia's general coverage is weak. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I consider 78 feature films in 15 years to be prolific. Further, she does receive postive response in horror genre-specific reviews about her films and her roles in them. Its a niche, certainly... but she has carved (no pun intended) a very solid place for herself in that niche. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per MichaelQSchmidt. Also, usage of IMDB for personal info is really bad. But I don't see anything wrong with using it for a filmography. Garion96 (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Prior AfD already concluded that a prolific actor is notable. That didn't change. In 5 minutes of research I found and added another decent reference. She's well-known as a prolific b-movie horror/cheap movie actress. Article has improved since this AfD started. --Milowent (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cinema Bizarre. Tone 11:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Came 2 Party[edit]

I Came 2 Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable song. POKERdance talk/contribs 23:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @221  ·  04:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. the issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frozan Fana[edit]

Frozan Fana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see the current claims, even if accurate, as sufficient evidence of notability. I also see only one potential reliable source, and I'm not sure that presstv.ir is such a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Press TV is a reputable source, no worries. As for sources, it seems to be a big deal. AP, NPR (National Public Radio), Toronto Star, BBC News. There are a couple more, but you see my point. I think we can waive WP:BLP1E here, seeing that 'elections' are something rarely heard in Afghanistan, and 'woman + elections' even more so. Note: previously involved in article history, rejected speedy delete. I swear I ain't biased! Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 03:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: God bless any woman who runs for public office in the Middle East, but... all this article tells me about this person is that she's a political candidate and a widow. It doesn't even include her birthdate -- just a birth year. If this person is truly notable, why is the article a mere two sentences long? Non-notable as currently written. TruthGal (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Abdul Rahman (Afghan minister) or Afghan presidential election, 2009. I'm not convinced this subject warrants her own article under WP:BIO. Although she has been mentioned in some very reliable sources, the extent of that coverage is not significant. Other than being the widow of a Cabinet minister, there isn't much to say other than she is one of two women running for president in Afghanistan. Location (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 20:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humane law enforcement[edit]

Humane law enforcement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, this is more like an essay then an encycloepedida article. I do not see an assertion of notability Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no surces backing this up so possibly a case of original research.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - I added sources and expanded the article, giving more information. MOOOOOPS (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COmment, One source 3 times? Really?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, really. It backs up the information in the article, and is informative. MOOOOOPS (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the article would be a lot more credible if it had references (other than WiseGeek) demonstrating that this is an established term/concept. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - can this be re-named to or merged with Animal control? Bearian (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could merge the Animal Control page into the humane law enforcement page, then create a section for animal control. MOOOOOPS (talk) 18:47, 19 August 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 01:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As is, the article does not appear to meet WP:V, however, "humane law enforcement" get enough hits to suggest it is notable. Location (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doomed for the foreseeable future to be “original synthesis”. —SlamDiego←T 06:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Absurd nomination on the basis of the article's current content, with no regard for the notability of the subject. 20,400 hits for the title, as shown above. 240 in Books, for crying out loud, so obviously not a neologism either. No rationale presented that should not be presented on the talk page. Synthesis is by definition impossible, as both articles use the term, therefore there cannot even be a hypothetical synthesis of the two, let alone one which is presented or reasoned. A waste of everyone's time. Go do something useful and let this article grow. Anarchangel (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. Consensus shifted towards "keep" following some improvements to the article during the AFD, although not everyone are entirely certain about the office's significance. There is certainly no consensus to delete at this point however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States House of Representatives Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations[edit]

United States House of Representatives Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing to suggest that this organisation is notable, or has ever done anything interesting. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 12:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. As an agency of the US Federal Gov't, it would seem to pass WP:N almost inherently. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no Google Books sources, and I can't really find any third-party reliable sources to give this any notability. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 14:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I can't find squat in the way of sources, either. Changing to weak delete with no prejudice to recreation if and when some reliable third-part sources are found. youngamerican (wtf?) 15:11, 15 August 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 01:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am voting this article my keeper of the day. As an entire government agency, the topic is clearly notable and verifiable, unless someone is arguing that this current single source is invalid, and that this agency does not really exist. As far as I can tell the argument is not that this agency does not exist but rather that it is an actual government agency, but that given that it is indeed a government agency, it somehow still does not meet the test for notability. Or well, I don't really understand the arguments for deleting this article. I will say this that it certainly needs some improvement, but it is not the current quality of the article that is at issue, but rather then potential of the topic self to have a good article written about it, and I see no reason that this government agency could not have a good article written about it. Being a federal agency makes it notable, as well as verifiable, so unless it is beeing argued that there is no evidence what so ever that this agency even exists it is clearly a topic for an article worth keeping.TeamQuaternion (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all I could find by relaxed searching "Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations" were primary sources like the US budget. I cannot find any evidence that this office has any physical existence whatsoever. So it fails WP:V, in that we have no way of knowing it is fulfilling its alleged duty of providing "emergency planning and operational support." When the whole article consists of one sentence, and it is unsupported by a secondary source (even the primary gov't sources don't say), it must be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 08:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It now has some referenced text describing its establishment (2002), operations, and purpose - continuity of House operations during emergencies. Novickas (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak keep A mere administrative arrangement. Much too minor to cover. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of 19 Congressional Offices [9]. Editors have been working on filling out this list in the US Congress template. The lack of third-party sources may stem from security concerns: "details surrounding House and Senate COOP planning are not publicly available, and some specific information is excluded from this report to preserve operational security." from a CRS Report [10] p. 2.
DGG, could you expand your comment re "mere administrative arrangement" and/or point to some previous WP discussions about the notability of federal offices? Do you think others of the 19 are candidates for deletion if multiple, substantive 3rd party sources can't be found? (Some of the WP articles in this template don't currently contain any, for example Recording Studio of the United States House of Representatives.) Novickas (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see below DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a clear keep in my opinion. As previously mentioned, this is a whole-of-government agency. Moreover, the administration of the department is overseen by notable people which in turn makes it notable itself. Considering the importance of its establishment and aims, i don't see how this could possibly be a delete. Taymaishu (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some points. 1) This office probably suffers lack of 3rd party coverage for the same reasons as other emergency management programs - when an emergency arises, the responsible body gets media attention, but if/until such happens, there won't be much. They've been involved in at least one exercise, there's a link to that in the article. Another one here from DHS [12]. It was a TOPOFF 3 exercise, there's no Wikilink to TOPOFF, but interested persons can Google that. 2) Re the lack of specific operational descriptions - as ref'd above, their operations are sensitive. 3) Re copy-paste from US gov't PD sources, that's currently acceptable on WP and definitely proves its existence and notability from the point of view of the US govt. 4) Without knowing the WP notability background of "every national legislative body" (have they been deleted in the past?) any such body sounds notable from a common-sense viewpoint. Novickas (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing administrator since this article was put up for deletion, it has been significantly improved and rewritten by User:Novickas Ikip (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All government agencies are inherently notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is absolutely not such rule or consensus stating that gov't agencies are "inherently notable." User:TomCat4680's notion needs to be completely ignored--not even counted as a vote, since this is not a vote. Abductive (reasoning) 20:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      My vote is just as good as yours. I'm removing your comments as a personal attack. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Not only are those comments not a personal attack (in what way to they attack your person?), even if they were, do not delete people's remarks. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 06:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote is just as good as his and I filed an ANI. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we agree that while you have every right to make an opinion (this is not voting, remember?), your view isn't in line with current policy at the moment? That's it. The closing admin can decide what weight to give to that, and I think that's the best we can do right now. No opinion either way on the actual issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but the government of the USA is. There will always be an appropriate level of the bureaucratic hierarchy to direct such agencies to, even if we can't find much to say about them separately. As there will thus usually be a good alternative to deletion, such agencies should not be brought to AFD per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After two relists, there is no consensus here that deletion is the best way forward. Closing without prejudice against renomination, merging, moving etc. Further discussion should take place on the article talkpage.  Skomorokh  12:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary W. Moore[edit]

Gary W. Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was not able to find any independent sources discussing this writer's work in any detail. The chief claim to notability seems to be an award from the Military Writer's Society of America, but I wasn't able to verify that as a notable organization itself, or the award as a significant one. Prod removed without the addition of independent sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to http://www.militarywriters.com/reviews/review-Playing%20with%20the%20Enemy.htm, it is about the books review by the Military Writer's Society of America. This backs up it's award. Crowz RSA (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, but that's the organization's own web site- what we need is the newspapers, magazines, and literary journals that wrote about this book and the award it won. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no newspapers, magazines, or literary journals that i could scource this with. Should I take the whole thing about him winning this award out? would that help at all? Crowz RSA (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If no independent sources have ever written about him, then he doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion at this time, and there isn't anything you could add or remove from the article that would change that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:53, 15 August 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) 00:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as
  1. Military Writer's Society of America (MWSA) has a WP article implying that the book award would be notable. However, At a first glance, the MWSA does not seem to be notable (another project in itself) meaning the award itself would not qualify as notable. This is a tossup. I tend to default an article as about a WP:N subject until proven otherwise meaning the award is notable and it's a keep per WP:PEOPLE.
  2. The Washington Post review is of the book and not the author meaning there may be cause to move the article to Playing with the Enemy (novel). I don't have time at the moment to explore this option in depth. Part of what I'm thinking about is how much WP:N weight to give to reviews and other coverage while a product is being actively promoted.
  3. The book was optioned for a movie in 2006. This indicates there was work put into filming in 2008 or earlier but also that the production company may be having financial problems. IMDB calls it a 2009 film with a release date of 2010. The WP:CRYSTAL is cloudy enough that I'll ignore this as evidence of notability. If the movie comes out the book gets an immediate WP:N boost but I'm less sure of the author.
  4. The author has a nice media page on his web site meaning it's likely most of the significant coverage is there. A consistent pattern in the snippets shown is that it's either the book getting covered or it's the author getting covered as a result of publicity tour appearances. There was coverage at the time the movie optioning was announced but WP:ONEEVENT comes to mind particularly as there does not seem to be continued coverage of the project other than because of the publicity tour for the book.
  5. Not a WP:N notability metric at all but my local library system has 12 copies with 11 of them checked out in the past year though none are checked out at the moment. Thus there's sustained reader interest in the book meaning it may be worthwhile to hunt hard for the WP:N evidence for the book with a move in mind.
While there has been coverage as a result of the book publicity tour and the movie being optioned there is no evidence that this resulted in significant coverage of the the subject (Gary W. Moore). He does not meet point 2 of WP:ANYBIO nor any of the four points in WP:AUTHOR
The sticky point, and resulting subjective call, is the award win. Is it notable enough to swing this into a "keep" per WP:ANYBIO? I think not, and particularly as there are no other significant WP:N nor WP:PEOPLE points I'd lean towards delete ran out of time to take another look at the available evidence. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not entirely convinced he fails point three of WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." It seems that the book has been subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", and it's possible that it will be made into a "feature-length film". That said, I agree that this case is exceptionally border-line. It might be better just to have Gary W. Moore redirect to Playing With the Enemy (if the book itself is determined notable). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL seems pretty clear. We can't use the possible movie as a WP:N point as it's not "certain to take place." When looking at point 3 of WP:AUTHOR how can I know if something is a significant or well-known work? Assuming we can demonstrate it's significant or well-known the book does seem to satisfy "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"
  1. September 29, 2006 Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL)
  2. July 13, 2008 - Unknown size review in Book World by Adam Mazmanian (Weekly periodical published by the Washingon Post). This is likely the same as the Washington Post review on the same date.
  3. Nine 16.2 (Spring 2008): p.137(3). (838 words) - This was published by the University of Nebraska Press. (Gale Document Number:A176981330)
  4. Library Journal 133.13 (August 1, 2008): p.92(1). (222 words) Brief review by Paul Kaplan, Lake Villa Dist. Lib., IL. (Gale Document Number:A184324011)
Mentions:
  1. Sept 15, 2006 - 193 word review in Booklist, a Semimonthly Magazine/Journal published by the American Library Association. My local library has the full text and it's a summary rather than review.
  2. March 19, 2008 The Herald News - Joliet (IL) - It's hard to tell if this is an independent review or an author visit.
  3. Apr 11, 2008 M&C News - Report that claims the book was "featured" in USA Today.
  4. December 23, 2006 The Southern - Not an independent review but documents efforts by book promoters to get on Oprah. This is confirmed on the book's web site and is something we can add to the book article.
  5. December 10, 2007 Publishers Weekly 254.49: p.11(1). (50 words) - Report that Penguin acquires paperback reprint rights and is something we can add to the book article.
There may be more. The book has been promoted quite a bit via author appearances meaning there were many reports related to this. It also means there's a bit of noise to wade through looking for those articles and reviews that appear to be in RS periodicals and seemingly independent of the promotion efforts. Something I saw very little of was coverage of the author meaning a move should do as the book either satisfies WP:N or is close. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyvio, blanked by author and unencyclopedic. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Impact of Narcissism on Sustainability and Leadership[edit]

The Impact of Narcissism on Sustainability and Leadership (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research, Reads as an essay and no real encyclopedic content AtheWeatherman 14:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. How can I have this article posted on Wikipedia without it being deleted? I believe there is great information, of the type an encyclopedia should contain about narcissism. I am a newbie at posting, and I am only contributing for the sake of misinformation in the narcissism section. I can provide whatever references for my post that are necessary. Usertalk:S12PGSCU --S12PGSCU (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even with references, this would still be an unencyclopedic opinion piece. See WP:SOAP. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption tax credit[edit]

Adoption tax credit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails the guideline for not using Wikipedia as a dictionary reference guide; it simply defines what the U.S. adoption tax credit is, making the entry look like a guidebook for those who need to take advantage of the credit. While perhaps a noble goal in its own right, it violates our policies. Additionally, the article fails to meet standards for notability since it lacks independent sources that can establish its significance.Tobit2 (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completion of incomplete nomination. No deletion rationale invoked.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - perfectly good idea for an article. Whatever mess needs to be cleaned up, but that is not a reason for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the article resembles neither a dictionary nor a how to guide. The article most certainly doesn't fail notability, as we judge articles by potential not their current state. An adoption tax credit is the subject of over 1000 news stories and covered in nearly 400 books. Sure the article is imperfect and needs both editing & referencing, but Wikipedia is a work in progress and AfD is not for forcing cleanup. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think there's plenty of precedent for keeping this type of entry. And no, I'm not arguing "other stuff exists" so much as "there are lots of already established rationales for keeping articles like this". We have the potential to do a lot more with this entry than create a dictionary entry, and I think the beginnings of such is already there. --A rolling stone (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC) — A rolling stone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep It may need a bit of tidying up, but it does not fail notability. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juggling notation[edit]

Juggling notation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Full of completely unorganised and unsourced drivelly original research, no references, little notability, etc. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 13:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is perfect, not even yours truly. Please, next time, do some homework before nomination, and, second, this sort of bickering should be moved elsewhere. NVO (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sure the page needs a good rewrite and a review should be undertaken to rationalise the various related articles. However, these are editorial matters. This is a perfectly encyclopedic topic and sources are avaialable - [13], [14], [15] etc Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Could nominators give better explained, more thought out and more respectful nominations? I don't see any evidence of following WP:BEFORE from the nominator. I'd proposed a merge to Juggling pattern as I thought the two topics could be best treated together, would appreciate thoughts on that proposal. Fences&Windows 03:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is has much promise and deletion would be contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this potential source. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Australian network television schedule (weekday)[edit]

1993 Australian network television schedule (weekday) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previous AfDs on similar articles can be found here, here, here. Ironholds (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide; what makes this schedule historically significant and/or where is some critical commentary on the schedule itself? --Cybercobra (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC) After an epiphany on the subject, I'm no longer sure at all about these articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and Cybercobra. Sarah 11:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no evidence that this schedule is notable because there isn't any significant coverage in the form of commentary from a reliable secondary source. If there was, then the reader could obtain basic information above and beyond the schedule itself: who drew it up, how it was developed, what the objectives of the schedule was, and whether it was successful or not in achieving these. Encyclopedic coverage that could provide context to the reader is absent, which is why it fails WP:N and WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page is not an article, nor is it a list which provides auxilliary content to an article. If this were an article about the 1993 TV schedule, as opposed to being the 1993 TV schedule, I would consider including it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NOTDIR. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 appears that deletion is not an issue here. Whether the article should remain separate or be merged back into Grand cru, is not an issue for AfD. Tone 11:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand cru (food and drink)[edit]

Grand cru (food and drink) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested Prod. Guidelines and policies that apply here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, and Wikipedia:No original research. The article is attempting to define the use of the term grand cru as it applies to food and drink outside of wine. The term Grand cru already has an article, where through disagreement about how to deal with use of the term beyond wine - Talk:Grand cru - this fork has been created.

And I suspect that Grand cru itself might be better dealt with in Classification of wine (where it's not even mentioned!) - so this Grand cru (food and drink) is potentially a fork of a fork. SilkTork *YES! 10:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems to be to much of a WP:NEO and a lot of original research, and a google search does not turn up anything relevant, except wine articles that already are on the wiki. AtheWeatherman 10:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What Google search did you do? if you just searched the article's exact title, obviously you wont find anything. Try searching Grand Cru [food] with [food] being replaced by anything mentioned in the article. Oreo Priest talk 04:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, tried the exact title and other things mentioned in the article. Regards AtheWeatherman 08:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a neologism and it is not a dictionary definition. It is a wider cultural phenomenon that warrants explanation. The fork was created as a result of consensus, and is not a POVFORK in any sense of the term. Its use (in chocolate at least) is referenced by a reliable source. Oreo Priest talk 04:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I am sufficiently swayed by the other comments. Merge/Weak Delete Seems too dictionaryish at present. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A merger would be fine by me. Oreo Priest talk 14:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Oppose Merger - The concept of Grand cru in wine is completely different than the concept used in chocolate, beer, etc. In wine, it has a set define meaning, regulated by official bodies. In other areas it is a marketing term used whenever the producer feels like it. While there may be room for potential expansion of the food & drink article, if it has to be dealt with in another context then transwiki would be FAR better than merging. AgneCheese/Wine 17:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a neologism here, just extended use of a qualification, however unregulated, from one commodity to another, one that no longer fits with an article about wine production. Merging is therefore a bad idea. The article could clearly use some expansion, a see also section, etc but it has value as it stands. --mikaultalk 08:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For evidence, here are some citations from the grand cru discussion page when the importance of this was being discussed:
  • "Facing the intensified international competition of the 1980s and heightened fears of increasingly centralized regulation, French chocolatiers and cultural taste makers attempted to stimulate new demand for craft commodities by promoting "genuine," "grand cru," or "vintage" French chocolate. "The cultural politics of food and eating" by James L. Watson, Melissa L. Caldwell, page 145. [[16]]
  • "A campaign created by Rumrill-Hoyt depicting the drama, emotion and impact expressed with black and white photography, won the top prize Grand Cru Gold Award." "Art direction" by National Association of Art Directors (U.S.), National Society of Art Directors, page 2. [[17]]
When searching for these, I also found an equestrian event in Australia using the term "grand cru" and a designation for students studying food that uses the term at a US school. Wakablogger2 (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is going to be an awkward one for the closer, as the majority of comments are in favour of keeping. However, I would point out that the article fails on several of our guidelines, and a core policy of WP:OR; in addition it fails our WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The article creators are attempting to write an encyclopedic entry on a borrowed marketing term for which there has been no direct commentary. There may be room for a sentence in the Grand cru article, such as "the term Grand cru is sometimes borrowed to market other products such as chocolate and beer", but beyond that is pushing a point. SilkTork *YES! 08:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you're alone in thinking that. I don't believe the article fails any of those guidelines. Oreo Priest talk 15:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it should go in with the grand cru article, but without any discussion, it was moved to its own article (even though a great deal of discussion had preceded). The article mover/creator was not "attempting to write an encyclopedic entry" but simply trying to eliminate the other meanings of grand cru from the meaning relating to viticulture. It seemed obvious to me that no amount of discussion was going to result in an amicable accommodation under the grand cru article, so I gave up. Ultimately, I think this information is valuable and relevant and therefore should be kept. Wakablogger2 (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IABF[edit]

IABF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Pure definition - Wikipedia is not a directory of chatroom abbreviations. I don't even think it warrants moving to Wiktionary.  – iridescent 09:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Reference has been added to the article that does not give this definition. noq (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Checking both articles, there's actually nothing left to merge so it's a clean delete. Tone 11:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 Hong Kong First Division League fixtures & results[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2009–10 Hong Kong First Division League fixtures & results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Excessive information for a domestic football season, fails WP:N and violates WP:NOT#IINFO. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 08:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G2 Guitar Effects Pedal[edit]

G2 Guitar Effects Pedal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant third-party coverage has been made. This is a multi-effects pedal, of which there have been hundreds since the 70s. No notable users. This is just an article written by some people who have one and think Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information. Conical Johnson (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is indiscriminate information. No independent sources. No claim to notability in article. This is a bit like having articles on every type of washing machine. --Sabrebd (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect or Merge with Effects pedal. This article doesn't have any notability in its own right. Wiki ian 09:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under A7 criterion. Found no evidence notability. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elle Kallista[edit]

Elle Kallista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress. No sources in article, searching google doesn't turn up any sources, movies aren't listed on imdb. Prezbo (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 00:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F1 2010 (video game)[edit]

F1 2010 (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:CRYSTAL — Dædαlus Contribs 05:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vegetarianism. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarian[edit]

Vegetarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is already an article on this, called Vegetarianism. We don't need two. — Dædαlus Contribs 03:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Redirect Up until August 25th this was a redirect to the detailed and old article Vegetarianism I think in the end it would be better to reinstate that redirect so that users get the best information when the go looking for the term. Jamesofur (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep An article on a vegetarian who follows vegetarianism is needed just as there is an article on a Christian who follows Christianity. Warrior4321 03:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in the end the term vegetarian really can't lend itself to anything other then an extended dictionary definition. Most of the actual encyclopedic information would be better suited for the Vegetarianism article. Jamesofur (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually much more could be placed. Take a look at Christian, Hindu, Jew, Zoroastrian, Muslim. 4 out of those 5 articles have long pages that state much more than just the term. We just need someone with the time and will to expand it properly. Warrior4321 04:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but most of those articles actually end up just restating a lot of the same info, in many ways they have the same issue. Look at Hindu for example, most of the article talks about the beliefs of hinduism not something that is actually unique to "Hindu" specifically. Jamesofur (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Vegetarianism. There is no reason to try to split the concept of "vegetarian" from "vegetarianism". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vegetarianism. If sources appear later that suggest this could be a standalone article, it can be restarted, but right now this is little more than an unsourced dictionary definition with some text redundant to Vegetarianism. Mr.Z-man 04:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The subject 'Vegetarian' has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So does 'Vegetarianism'. I have not even looked at the articles, because current content is totally beside the point. GNG, thus, keep.  Chzz  ►  04:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to vegetarianism. There's nothing to merge. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change !vote to keep. More exists now, and I'm seeing the beginnings of a decent article at this point in time that's more that what boils down to a WP:DICDEF. It's granted that it still points out to it being more or less something that echoes what can be found in Vegetarianism, but I'm pretty much willing to give this one a chance. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to vegetarianism. It was even originally created as a redirect to there, seven and a half years ago, but every now and then someone comes along and thinks it'd be a good idea to start a duplicate article instead. Can the redirect be protected? JIP | Talk 08:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to vegetarianism. Any useful for information should be placed there. Wiki ian 10:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vegetarianism. No content that isn't already there, and I don't foresee any content that would justify having two separate articles.--Michig (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep An ideology and a diet are not the same thing. Vegetarian and vegetarianism are not interchangeable any more than christian and christianity are. The article is new and being expanded. It was also gutted by those trying to delete and redirect it. It's important to provide time for a subject to be developed adequately instead of rushing to delete things because they aren't complete. The vegetarian article should cover what it is to be a vegetarian, the diet, the prominent people who are vegetarian, and the history of the diet, as well as the broader issues of a diet that excludes meat and animal parts. The vegetarianism article should cover the ideology, why it's practiced and based on what principles and beliefs. Certainly there is overlap, but these are distinct subjects that should be treated appropriately. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be very interested in an explanation on how animals that are vegetarian can be discussed in vegetarianism. Do they prescribe to this belief system? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is,Wikipedia users looking for information about vegetarians (vegetarian people) would not think to look under 'herbavores'...Personally I think the human versus nonhuman animal distinction is overdone in our culture but the reality of word usage is, it would be a bad choice since users wouldn't look there, and even if redirected to herbavores would be a usage contrary to standard for the latter term. (My concerns re the title of this entry are posted below) --Harel (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that there is a difference between a diet and a belief system. And given the extent of the sources and the content, trying to merge all of the content from an aritcle on the vegetarian diet, into an article on the ideologies underlying it is ridiculous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Just because there are multiple reasons to not eat meat does not make them their own subjects. Chillum 18:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your general point is certainly correct; just because there are multiple reasons, does not automatically mean separate subjects. Sometimes such separate subject do exist (e.g. environmental vegeterianism exists) The issue at hand, which we're discussing (and about which I've asked for clarification below) is whether in this case there is (not an automatic, but specific) cause for separate subject--Harel (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any content that needs it and redirect I see no point in this division, even if they are different subjects(and I don't see how) they can still be covered in the same article. Chillum 17:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect There might possibly be reason to split the article , but not when there is no specific content to split. The distinction between the diet and the belief system is dealt with by the articles Vegetarian nutrition and Vegetarian cuisine on one hand, and Ethics of vegetarianism on the other, and there are quite a number of other articles in the group. "Christian" seems to be an exception, as there is good reason to discuss the term itself in an encyclopedic way. I see no article for Buddhist or Republican (as a member of the US party) , or many similar possibilities. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect why this was not put up for redirect instead of AFD, I don't understand. Ikip (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most of the arguments here are in favour of reverting the article to a redirect to vegetarianism. Am I allowed to invoke WP:SNOW and close the AfD early? JIP | Talk 19:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe that one of the reasons for splitting this off is that the author believes that vegetarianism is intself an ideology or belief system (I'm judging this from what is currently in Vegetarian). It isn't - vegetarianism is simply the practice of following a vegetarian diet. There could be many different reasons for following such a diet as stated in the article, e.g. health. Portraying vegetarianism as a belief system per se is fundametally flawed. The religious reasons for following such a diet are already covered by vegetarianism and religion and the ethical considerations in Ethics of eating meat. A vegetarian is simply one who practices vegetarianism and vice versa. --Michig (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The title of this article obviously ought to lead somewhere as the term is highly notable. The relationship of this to other related articles such as Pythagorianism is a matter of content editing not deletion. Note that there are dozens of articles in this category - Category:Vegetarianism - and it's not clear why we should pick on this one to merge when its title seems to be the most common name per WP:COMMONNAME. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep..possibly under clearer name Several good points are made on several sides. (Disclaimers: I am a long time vegetarian but have been mostly on my own and thus not very well familiar with 'vegetarian lifestyle', a term I use,and ask for info about, below)
It's true there is a Christian entry as well as Christianity,and likewise for Jew, Muslim, etc, as Warrior4321 notes. On the other hand vegetarianism is not a religion. Above point about "not clear why we should pick on this one" is legitimate but also legitimate is the "request for clarity of its purpose" I hear above. I would personally appreciate some clarity regarding the nature of the Vegetarian entry given that it's not a religion.. .. I agree with Michig that vegetarianism is not (necessarily) a belief system, that is, for some individuals it might be ...It's not a movement either (Vegetarianism, among other things, is) ...it is a lifestyle for some..
I generally dislike the term "lifestyle" but bear with me, or maybe suggest an alternate second word..but maybe "Vegetarian lifestyle" is a better name for this? It could then have sub-sections (and links to fuller articles) on vegetarian cuisine,on ethics, etc. As I said I don't generally like the word lifestyle...maybe there's a better word...the thing is, for religions we have Jew and Muslim etc, we don't currently have but might have one for Buddhist, which would widen our range (since Buddhism is not a religion per se) but we have easy words for it for categories, be it 'spiritual path' or "a tradition" or "A belief system" (or maybe even the dreaded "lifestyle" if some had their way) but it's harder to put a category for "Vegetarian"?
Admittedly, we could argue all day back and forth about what category might or might not work, but my hope is that all sides can be open and agree one some category, that is, "vegetarian" is a type of _____? If lifestyle, then "vegetarian lifestyle" would make it clear what it's supposed to be, giving focus and purpose. If we don't like lifestyle, and see it as X, then renaming as "Vegetarian X" might work...
Or I could be all wrong and maybe it's worth keeping as just Vegetarian (I just found an entry on Pedestrian that is not at all short) but if I as a long-time vegetarian (and almost as long vegan) "even" I am a little bit puzzled by the title,others may have similar questions: "Vegetarian Cuisine" is clear and "Vegetarianism" is a clear 'ism" and ethics of vegetarian/vegan/meat-eating , is clear what those are about, but just "Vegetarian" leaves me wondering if it's philosophy, lifestyle (like "straight edge" lifestyle overlaps with in the vegan-straight-edge movement I know not much about but have heard about) or something else..and if so what is that something?...
Sorry about the length, I am sitting on the fence here..I hope some of the questions raised above can be used to bring people together (rather than apart) once tentative answers to them are agreed upon...(if veganism continues to expand and becomes more and more common in the next 10 years as some expect, maybe in 2019 we'll have a conversation about the analogous entry?) Let's try to settle this one amicably :-) --Harel (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect to Vegetarianism. We need to ensure that Wikipedia's readers are getting the best possible information possible, if one were to goto this article see such a major topic as being a stub, what would they think? Secondly, I'd like to refer you all too WP:DICT, that is my case. Thirdly, It had been a redirect for a very long time, I see no reason to change it.--Jamie Shaw (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per DGG and S Marshall. The arguments in favour of keeping are addressed by the family of articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reason we have an article on Christian's and Christianity, the person who practices something is very different from the practice itself, and there's plenty of room for discussion for them as seperate articles (and no, this is not a WP:OSE argument, I'm drawing a parallel here). Umbralcorax (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's anything, I don't consider that to really be an WP:OSE argument. To be frank, I'd be fine with it if it were more than merely a dicdef - which, as of my comment now, seems to be the case. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a new article and I'm happy to work on improving and expanding it, but not if it's going to be imminently deleted or I have to do it all by myself. I think an article on the diet (as opposed to the ideologies involved which are themselves extensive and notable) is worth including. I think a discussion of sorting out and possibly merging content with the nutrition and cuisine articles is also worth considering, but a good treatment of the subject of the vegetarian diet as a historical, social, and cultural topic seems worthwhile. The ideology is also worth giving a full an dfair treatment and I think it will be more effective if it doesn't have to include these separate diet focused content issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Runaway (2010 film)[edit]

Runaway (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. Fails WP:NFF. Bluemask (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No sources are provided, nor is this film even listed in the Internet Movie Database yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice unless it can be sourced to meet guideline. I was myself unsuccessful in a search, but Philipine cinema does not get much coverage in the U.S., so I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: From what I know, there were no definite news of another John Lloyd-Sarah movie. Not that I know of any, since I regularly follow the entertainment section of the Star and the inquirer :P My best bet is that this is another fancrufty article with nary a supporting reference. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced and written in a speculative manner. Starczamora (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No sense in deleting a valid search term with possibly useful history.  Skomorokh  12:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Confidential Presents: Knoc-turn'al[edit]

AfDs for this article:
L.A. Confidential Presents: Knoc-turn'al (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUMS. The album failed to chart on Billboard [18] (or anywhere else I can see). Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Article has been tagged for total lack of references for over a year. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails NALBUMS and is not a notable album by any other means. JBsupreme (talk) 08:43, 20 August 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) 00:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part of the notability guideline says that for albums? I see may be merged it into discography, but nothing stating must be. So "no need for AfD" is really a matter of opinion and not policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting"'. Redirects are cheap, its a plausible search term, there's no need to delete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May, not must. So the mini-lecture about "no need for AfD" is simply uncalled for. Bringing it to AfD is not improper.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Knoc-turn'al. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Hustler[edit]

Return of the Hustler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Failed to chart on Billboard [19]. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Article has been tagged for having no sources for over 2 years. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:58, 15 August 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) 00:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, you misinterpret. For albums, it says may be merged to discography. It doesn't say must. So stating there is "no need for AfD" isn't really much more than opinion being presented as policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a plausible search term, whats the problem with a redirect? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say there was necessarily a problem, but you've been saying "No need for AfD" on everything today, as if there is some blatant policy violation in bringing it to AfD and for the albums, incorrectly stating that the policy is to just redirect. It's not the policy. Redirect is an option, as is deletion. You !voted redirect. Fine. No need for the mini-lecture. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you interpreted what I said as a "mini-lecture", but its usually a good idea to consider other options before bringing things to AfD. Redirects are logical, intuitive for encyclopedia users and easily carried out by simple editing. Redirecting a song to the album is an easy way of solving problem articles that are either unlikely to be expanded or not notable in themselves. Thats why I said "No need for AfD": because a redirect is far simpler. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Knoc-turn'al seems most appropriate under WP:NALBUMS given apparent lack of notability and the benefits to users of a redirect versus deletion. Rlendog (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sizeflation[edit]

Sizeflation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An interesting and certainly real topic, but I can't find any reliable sources online using this term. Indeed, most of the instances I did find of this term refer to an entirely separate phenomenon, that of clothes sizes altering to flatter buyers. It's been marked as original research for a while so perhaps it really is. Rigadoun (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, seems to be no more than a definition, and seems a WP:NEO. Matbe on wiktionary, but now wikipedia, it is not a dictionary. AtheWeatherman 18:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It probably could be expanded beyond dicdef if there were references (like the history or spread of the practice). I advise against transwiki unless references are found. Rigadoun (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I suspect this is a term that may have been made up as a joke. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; not notable, not WP:V verifiable by cited sources. N2e (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Blox[edit]

Neo-Blox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a trivial list of toys that does not assert notability or importance, and it also includes some original research on fan reaction. TTN (talk) 23:14, 15 August 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) 00:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I'm relatively inexperienced in matters of AfD, so one question that comes to mind while reading this article is this: Could this be considered a form of advertising? I mean, it's basically a list of toys produced by one company. I don't see how this qualifies as an article; there's nothing that appears notable to me. Unschool 00:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it may not be considered advertising, it is definite OR, with no references to prove them otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior4321 (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 03:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable and probably original research. -- nips (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Finals Song Contest[edit]

National Finals Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a small fan-voting with no significance to the participating artists (who are likely not even aware of it). All the information is available in the referenced website. May not pass WP:N. Zosha (talk) 12:52, 15 August 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) 00:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 02:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be just a poll conducted by a web site. No independent sources have been provided to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 19 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarratt report[edit]

Jarratt report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability. Article is extremely vague as to the importance of this report. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used fairly modest language, and perhaps this masked the notability and importance of the report. It is one of two major reports which lead to large-scale changes in the nature of British Universities. It is a subject of a recent book on the history of British Universities, and has been claimed to be a critical move, requested by university management, to aggregate power away from collegial academic systems an into a managerial system... Perhaps there is a page into which it can be merged, but failing such a suggestion, it should be left .Tim bates (talk) 16:26, 23 August 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) 00:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 02:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many sources Google books has well over a hundred [20] , and Google scholar has even more. [21] .Even G. News archive has some.[22] What happened to WP:BEFORE? DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Definitely notable, the article could use some more citation. --Milowent (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Second Round's on Me. NW (Talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cry Now[edit]

Cry Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short and simple: Fails WP:NSONGS. The song never charted on any of their charts according to Billboard. [23]. 54 gnews hits, most of which just mention that it was on the album, so I'd have to say there was a lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. [24] Niteshift36 (talk) 18:44, 15 August 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) 00:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 02:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Wood (environmental campaigner)[edit]

David Wood (environmental campaigner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear that this individual meets notability requirements. Claim of notability includes leadership of a non-notable organization. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:06, 15 August 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) 00:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination relies on the organization Computer TakeBack Campaign not being a notable organization, therefore see that article and my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer TakeBack Campaign, same nominator. Anarchangel (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A single publicity stunt doesn't create notability.—Kww(talk) 12:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 02:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject of article was an important leader of *two* notable organizations: the GrassRoots Recycling Network (GRRN) and the Computer TakeBack Campaign (CTBC). Both organizations were cutting-edge, predicting the tsunami of electronic waste now washing over the globe. David Wood made indelible contributions to both. The problems he was a pioneer in addressing are far from resolved, but he played a key role in bringing them to the attention of the general public, the media, and policymakers.DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Collie Buddz (album) per suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come Around[edit]

Come Around (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Song appears to fail WP:NSONGS. While the album it came from did ok, this song failed to chart according to Billboard. [25]. I don't see significant coverage by reliable sources either. Article has been tagged for notability and lack of sources since Dec. 2008. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 15 August 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) 00:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 02:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Discussion closed as duplicative. There is still a pending AfD for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saints in Methodism, which has received only a few comments so far. Anyone with an opinion as to whether this article should be kept or deleted should post their comments at the first AfD. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saints in Methodism[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Saints in Methodism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It has been pending deletion for quite awhile. What's holding it up? Thanks Afaprof01 (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Afaprof01 (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is there a reason for deleting it? DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was userfy. Moved to User:ParkerJones2007/Comparison of Prolog standards compliance (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Prolog standards compliance[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Comparison of Prolog standards compliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This bizarre article seems to be a compendium of what Wikipedia is not: an indiscriminate list; an instruction manual; excessively technical; not notable; and furthermore, if I am reading it correctly, it is explicitly original research - apparently this is just a reprint of the data and results, in extreme detail, of some research two computer scientists did. A previous Afd (which I can not locate yet) apparently resulted in no consensus, but according to the talk page it was kept on the assumption that it would be improved, which it hasn't been in 2 years. I submit that it is impossible to improve the article and it can't be merged anywhere. Surfer83 (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree with the editor that nominated this article for deletion; there is no reason to keep this article unless someone somehow quickly establishes reliable sourcing and notability. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 August 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) 02:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability has been established by multiple reliable sources (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn Electronics Corporation, Bare Board PCB Manufacturer[edit]

Saturn Electronics Corporation, Bare Board PCB Manufacturer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company. I have checked the sources on Google News Archive, but none on the first page appear to be reliable.

If someone is able to find multiple, independent, non-trivial reliable sources about this company, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AfD withdrawn. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European Society for Medical Oncology[edit]

European Society for Medical Oncology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dubious notability. I removed the {{db-spam}} and the promotional content from the article because this non-profit might be notable. Google News Archive returns hundreds of results, but the first 50 I looked at were press releases.

If someone can find third-party, reliable sources about this organization, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy keep A medical organization with over 6,000 members in over 100 different countries seems so obviously notable that I don't really see how there could be an debate on the subject. I agree that the article can be improved by finding more third party sources on the subject, but I propose that we immediately close this laughable discussion and replace the proposal for deletion with a tag indicating that this article cites no sources. Maybe it would be better to actually look at all the references to this organization in a search engine before proposing it for deletion, saying that the first 50 were press releases does not seem to me to be a very reasonable argument as to why the facts in the article are not verifiable.TeamQuaternion (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is the major professional organization of oncologists in Europe, analogous to ASCO in the US. They publish Annals of Oncology, a respectably prominent subspecialty journal. ESMO holds a major annual meeting, material from which is often presented in the popular press (e.g. [28], [29], [30]. MastCell Talk 03:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source doesn't mention ESMO; the second source is sufficient; but the third one is a passing mention. The second source indicates this topic is notable and that there are probably more sources out there. AfD Withdrawn. Thank you for your comments. Cunard (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swat4j[edit]

Swat4j (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:20, 22 August 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) 01:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domination Homes[edit]

Domination Homes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable building company, one of presumably a few hundred in Perth. Entry appears to be blatant advertising. A finalist for a local building award hardly makes this encyclopaedic. –Moondyne 11:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 25 August 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) 01:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brighton Museum & Art Gallery. Cirt (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Pavilion & Museums, Brighton & Hove collections[edit]

Royal Pavilion & Museums, Brighton & Hove collections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically I'm questioning this subject's notability, but also whether it repeats other articles (i.e. has content better placed elsewhere). There are articles on Brighton, on Hove, and on Brighton and Hove, the conjoined city, which can hold summaries of the city's museums. Linked from there are specific articles on the more notable museums such as the Royal Pavilion and – most relevantly – Brighton Museum & Art Gallery. Is there really a need to have an article which is essentially a list of their contents and collections? These are a subject for the institutions' own web pages, and in some cases are somewhat transient. – Kieran T (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If the museum(s) have items in their collection that are of particular interest or make that museum of particular importance, this should be mentioned in the article about the museum. I don't see a separate article about the collection as justified here, although there may be some content that can usefully be merged to the other article(s). Perhaps a merge to Brighton Museum & Art Gallery followed by a trim would be the best approach.--Michig (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - redundant as pointed out by the nominator - Whpq (talk) 16:25, 25 August 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) 01:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep apparently a major museum. The details of course will be on the museum's webpages, but there's no reason why highlights shouldn't be listed here--that does not make it a directory. An exhaustive catalog of everything they own would be another matter. We have articles on all significant museums and one of the things they say or ought to say is some idea of what's in them. I am not sure about the exact relationship to Brighton Museum and Art Gallery, but if they are the same, the articles should be merged. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: part of the problem is that the relationship between "Brighton Museum and Art Gallery", and "Royal Pavilion & Museums, Brighton & Hove", which is being presented as some sort of unspecified organisation, is unsourced/unreferenced (i.e. what is the nature of the organisation, or is it simply an administrative term?). A separate article, titled just "Royal Pavilion & Museums, Brighton & Hove" was PRODded and deleted for this reason. (The present article was also PRODded and the PROD removed along with a general cleanup which frustratingly added nothing except cleanliness ;) And to refine an over-specific word in my original nomination, for "their own webpages", please also read "their own articles in WP". – Kieran T (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are several museums in and around Brighton, two of which are Brighton Museum & Art Gallery (housed on the same site as the Royal Pavillion) and the Royal Pavillion. The article under discussion describes parts of the collections of several museums including the aforementioned two, Hove Museum & Art Gallery, and others. As far as I am aware, the museums in question house their exhibits on a permanent or semi-permanent basis, so it would be much better to describe the more notable aspects of the individual collections in the articles about each museum. The article is currently fairly useless to the reader who may wish to visit Brighton to see some of these items.--Michig (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The unspecified organisation does indeed have the title Royal Pavilion, Museums and Libraries or something like that. It is merely the relevant department of the City Council which runs the Pavilion (not 'Pavillion') and the Brighton museum, Hove museum and others. See http://www.virtualmuseum.info/
Therefore the information presented in this article would be better included in the relevant articles with perhaps a cross reference from 'Brighton and Hove Museums' as the present title is unlikely to ever be a search term.Sussexonian (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant material to Brighton Museum & Art Gallery, to the "Museums" section of Brighton (where several of the museums, such as the Booth Museum of Natural History, are mentioned), to the "Hove Museum and Art Gallery" section of Hove, and wherever else it might fit. Michig seems to be correct that these museums are separate institutions, though there may be some all-embracing administrative or promotional organization; and descriptions of their holdings are best treated separately. Since there seem to be only a couple of substantive contributors to this article, attribution can be handled by the merges' edit summaries' pointing to the articles' talk pages, where the specific contributors and contributions can be detailed. Then this article can be deleted. Deor (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Deor. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Brighton Museum & Art Gallery. That article has a "Collections" section, which appears to refer to the holdings of the art gallery only. Accordingly, sections on the museum collections would fit well. However, some of the introductory material in the taget article on the history of the Pavilion would be better merged into the article on the Royal Pavilion, if it is not there already. The whole group of articles needs attention by some one living in that area, with local knowledge of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the discussion above indicates, much of the collection material treated in this article is held at the Booth Museum of Natural History, the Brighton Toy and Model Museum, the Hove Museum and Art Gallery, and various other museums than the Brighton Museum & Art Gallery. Merging material only to Brighton Museum & Art Gallery would result in the loss of information that could be used to expand other articles/sections and, if it were done indiscriminately, could lead to the inclusion of incorrect or misleading information in that article. Deor (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have the knowledge to know how the merge should be done. You may be right in saying that there should be multiple merge targets. My point is merely that the right solution is to merge the material, rather than a plain delete. I am not suggesting that the resultant redirect need necessarily be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; unanimous keep, time elapsed.  Chzz  ►  14:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence P. Cazalot, Jr.[edit]

Clarence P. Cazalot, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person with biographical references. Article and references does not indicate notability E Wing (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable chief executive. Even if he wasn't independently notable, which he is, he could be merged in with the company's article. Plenty of sources in business publications with coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - He's the head of a major organization. That's notable. I came looking for his entry today, and not Marathon Oil's, so I think that says something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.245.98 (talk) 18:27, 27 August 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) 01:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Munck[edit]

Noah Munck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any significant coverage for this and the only has one major role. The only coverage that I found for him that wasn't from the iCarly site was press releases about his guest star appearance on ER. Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:ENT. A few minor appearences and a minor recurring role on a small TV show doesn't get him past it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 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) 01:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While sources were produced, they appear to be insufficient to show notability. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buglist[edit]

Buglist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: Notable software in so much as it has a good sized user base. as can be seen here and here. The softare provides a useful service to users. The software seems to be used within the scope of Eclipse it's self too, and has some coverage on Eclipse mailing lists. The software also has some coverage in Eclipse User Circles. Not to mention the fact the linked pages do address Significant Coverage and, as the linked article says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Cheers, Jonomacdrones (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two download sites and a tutorial is not significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. The project's sourceforge page and a web forum do not constitute reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 25 August 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) 01:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fading Echoes (Warriors)[edit]

Fading Echoes (Warriors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Book not due for release for another 8 months, and with no significant write up in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Astronaut (talk) 06:32, 15 August 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 00:56, 22 August 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) 01:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. This debate wasn't sorted so a second relist is justified. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The article is filled with original research: "All that is known about the book is that Ivykit, the daughter of Whitewing and Birchfall, will be featured on the cover ..." This is clearly un-encyclopedic. The lack of sourced content means that a merge to Warriors (novel series) isn't viable. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

It was really stupid to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.148.3.154 (talk) 09:29, 27 October 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. Bad-faith nomination by sockpuppet; an Olympic medalist is an obvious keep. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gustave Sandras[edit]

Gustave Sandras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsoured biography of a decased person that is a WP:NOT violation BaldwinPictures58 (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt He was champ for 1900 --NY METS FAN 2000 01:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaldwinPictures58 (talk • contribs) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I see a rough consensus to delete. Some of the keep comments appeared to rely on arguments that have been generally accepted as unpersuasive, and I weighed those accordingly. In general, the subject seems to be on the cusp of notability, but not there yet. If asked, I will be happy to place a copy of this article in user space so it can be improved. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Put it in user space then. Another article or two and this'll be good to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Pace (talk • contribs) 01:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Steve Kaufmann[edit]

Steve Kaufmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although impressive number of languages known, their are no GNEWS beyond press releases and GHits consist mainly of blogs and book references. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wrong. Here's Google News on Steve Kaufmann: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22steve+kaufmann%22+language&cf=all. About 2/3 of the relevant articles are valid Canadian press coverage. Passes WP:BIO. Moreover, why is Google News the arbiter of notoriety. Google News doesn't get everything: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bcradio/2009/03/05/BC-Radio-Live. What's more, if I start listing out language-learning blogs on which he's featured or discussed, the list will get really long. Should I? "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]
If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Steve's got extensive blog coverage backed up by media coverage, backed up by primary sources, so that seems to be pretty easily met. In addition, under the "Any Bio" guidelines, Steve has won significant awards in language blogging (indeed, the significant award in language blogging) and his views on language learning have had an enduring affect on the field. Vincent Pace (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I looked at the same “news” articles before I nominated the article for AfD. Here is what I found:
Items 1,2 and, 3 — are press releases and are not really independent sources.
Items 4,5, and 6 — are the same article and Kaufmann is only briefly quoted in the article.
Item 7 — is not available.
Item 8 — is only a mention of where he will be speaking.
Item 9 — is not about the subject, but rather talks about basketball players.
Item 10 — Is not about the right Kaufmann.
A couple of additional comments, Google News is only one indicator of Notability, there are many factors that can be involved; and third party blogs are not considered to be reliable support for BLP. My best to you... ttonyb1 (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Doesn't this bio also make it as an author? WP:Author He's certainly widely cited by his peers, and there are strong argument in other factors as well. In addition, more press coverage is available here: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20080705a1.html, http://www.japantoday.com/category/executive-impact/view/youre-never-too-old-to-learn-a-new-language, http://media.thelinguist.com/media/2008/03/19_radio1.mp3 (interview with Radio Canada in French), http://media.thelinguist.com/media/2008/EnglishLingQ/208_cest_lavie.mp3 (interview with Radio Canada in English) (haven't tracked down these yet on Radio Canada) Vincent Pace (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not actually seen any citations of his work by his peers, and the two links to thelinguist.com are not independent of the subject. But, the pieces in the Japan Times and Japan Today contribute to borderline WP:GNG notability. Two pieces is not quite enough for me to call significant, but more similar pieces might win me over. (Looking again, the Japan Today piece reads more like a press release than reliable news coverage. The Japan Times piece is better, though it is a feature.) Cnilep (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 New Belgium Brewing Company. The consensus was that this ought not be a discrete article, and the redirect is the most convenient way to preserve the attribution history. If necessary a history merge could be performed, but that does not seem to be warranted at this time. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Fitch[edit]

Anne Fitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested redirect. Fails WP:Bio. There are no reliable sources for this person. The person is not mentioned in any of the references given in the article. The article explains that the person is a neighbour of the brewery owner, and her sole claim to fame is that her designs are used by the brewery. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. SilkTork *YES! 00:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

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

The result was keep. Consensus suggests that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Discussion regarding editorial decisions may continue at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Master Shake[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Master Shake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After an incipient edit war about restoring the article after the previous AfD concluded "delete and redirect" and a G4 speedy nomination that was declined by an admin (neither of which I was involved in), I'm bringing this here for discussion. I see no reason for the previous AfD closure to be disregarded without a deletion review concluding that the restoration of the article is warranted, and the two new sources cited in the article hardly treat the topic in a substantive manner (being nothing but passing mentions). I therefore advocate deletion, with a subsequent recreation of the redirect, in accordance with the result of previous AfD. The question of recreation can then be brought up at DRV if anyone thinks it worthwhile. Deor (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. If the nominator is advocating a redirect rather than a redlink, that can be discussed on the article's talk page. In any event, I agree with Hobit. Specifically with regards to my edit here. The AfD was held back in 2007, i.e. three years ago. The character's significance has only expanded in the past three years as it is a main character in a multi-season television show, a theatrically released movie, a mainstream video game, had a guest appearance on another show, has been made into costumes and action figures, etc. The DVD commentaries provides out of universe development information and reviews of the show discuss his reception, as verified on Google Books and especially Google News. What editors deemed non-notable three years ago does not autamatically mean events will not occur subsequently as has happened here to make the notable not relevant. It concerns yet another unilateral redirect. And well, just because you "feel" it is not notable, when all evidence points to the contrary and when two editors disagree, does not mean you should just go ahead and redirect. DRV is for reviewing administrator's closes of discussions. No one is challenging the close of the three year old discussion. Rather, since then, we would be hard pressed to imagine another consensus supporting outright deletion as the appearances and sources for this character have increased astronomically since then. One should not have to play games with processes when common sense suggests the character's is in a much better position for potential improvement now than three years ago. If you do not think something that has appeared in a multi-season show, a theatrically released film, as a guest in other shows, in video games, toys, costumes, and has been covered in multiple mainstream reliable sources is notable, then we are not having a reasonable academic discussion on "notability". Not even the most ludicrously strict definition of "notability" would preclude such a character. This character has significant coverage in reliable sources according to any reasonable examination of these sources. It is one instance where it is more objective fact than subjective interpretation. Given the shear number of the sources, yes, you could indeed make a multi-paragraph section on reception. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it looks like sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per A Nobody. Possibly redirect. 453 Google news hits Ikip (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge. Consider a merged article for the three main characters. The discussion of them in the combination article is too short to be meaningful, just as the discussion here is too extensive. There's usually a compromise. A nobody makes some other suggestions for doing this. Technically, per the GNG, the sources would permit an article, but I do not think that necessarily means we must make one. However, finding additional sources is a very good reason to reinstate a previously deleted article. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are references, so there is no excuse for people to destroy this character article. Dream Focus 02:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major character of a decently long-running tv show, and no plan mentioned for dealing with the articles on the other 2-3 major characters. Unless someone is ready to merge these into one "list of major character of Aqua Teen Hunger Force" or whatever, I see no reason to delete. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deor. This was an inappropriate recreation of a previously discussed and deleted article. That's what WP:DRV is for. Jack Merridew 04:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the last AfD, was in November 2007! Going to DRV would be needless and this article easily passes WP:N. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 04:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as referenced - I have undeleted the pre-Nov 07 edits so editors can judge for themselves the improvements. I think given it has improved, then AfD is a better path to go than doing it sight unseen via DRV. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A nobody. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gonna echo A Nobody. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. DRV is for, well, reviewing AfD closures. I don't think anyone is contending that the last AfD was improperly closed. I am unaware of any rule that says recreating a deleted article, no matter how long ago the deletion was, must go through DRV (at least when no unsalting is needed). Indeed, that would make DRV quite unmanageable. DRV does sometimes consider new sources, but that is AFAIK normally incident to its review of a closure, to decide if a relist is warranted in light of the sources (again, assuming that we are not talking about unsalting). Is anyone actually proposing to reopen and relist that 2-year-old AfD? As to the merits, for the reasons well stated by A Nobody, this article passes WP:N with ease. Tim Song (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you really think that the (now) three references in the article, which support only a minuscule part of its content, constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? A search such as this (and the corresponding search for Web material) suggests that "passes WP:N with ease" may be an overstatement, to say the least. Deor (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The people here are obviously either diehard inclusionists or those who don't really understand how to properly relate WP:N to fictional topics. Two sources, which provide fairly insignificant comments, are not enough to establish independent notability, and this is especially true for a character that only needs a small paragraph to describe the entirety of its fictional content. This obviously won't be deleted, but hopefully the closer will add something about this not affecting any possible merge discussions. TTN (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing nominator please note I hope that there is no mention in the closing comments that the close will "not affect...any possible merge discussions" the last time that happened in a keep, TTN had a several week long bitter battle over three articles, culminating in a long edit war and an ANI.Ikip (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't participate in any of the edit warring or the ANI thread, so that has nothing to do with this. TTN (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But your friends on the WikiProject: Video games did, after you ask them to help you, since your actions attracted an inclusionist. [32] Anyone who disagrees with your opinion that all/most character articles everywhere should be deleted, is a diehard inclusionist fanatic apparently. Avatar (Ultima) closed as Keep, and yet it got merged anyway, against the opinions of the majority of people involved in the merge discussion. If the article closes as a Keep, it should be kept, not replaced with a redirect and claims that a token bit of information was merged. Dream Focus 12:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be in the better interest of you two (Ikip and Dream Focus) to not use bullying to try and intimidate editors that don't agree with you. This has nothing to do with the Avatar event which clearly had consensus to merge as a possibility. It would do both of you damn well to assume to some good faith instead of preaching about evils that aren't there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the nature of the comment at that link, a blatant violation of WP:CANVASSING if not actual meatpuppetry, good faith is indeed getting rather strained here DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue improvements toward an independent article or a suitable merge resulting from a discussed compromise. With respects to TNN, I am not a "diehard inclusionist" and have !voted delete at many AfDs. The first AfD was nearly two years ago... and I am not in any way suggesting that the closure in 2007 was incorrect. But the world continues to turn... and it is not too difficult a stretch me to believe that the continued coverage of ATHF since that first AfD might now provide sourcing that could allow the article to better meet the requirements of WP:N. With an understanding that consensus is not eternal, and that growth is the purpose of Wikipedia and not its bane, I do not think it unreasonable to allow the article to be improved so as to better the project as a whole. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a main character in a notable series. A good article is certainly possible. -- Banjeboi 02:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ah, the Article Rescue Squadron Extraordinaire shock troops—how I love them! Deor (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please comment on content not contributors, if you actually dispute what someone is stating that would be more compelling than disparaging what you see as their motives. -- Banjeboi 18:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deor is right! It is absolutely shameful that any group trying to improve articles to improve the project might actually have opinions... and worse yet that they dare to voice them at discussions about those same articles... trying to share their own narrow interpretationa on applicable guidelines. Outrageous!! How dare they think to even suggest that an article might be improved! Blasphemy!! All Wikiprojects should be disbanded as representative of special interest groups... and their memberships summarliy banned. 198.147.225.176 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above per DGG who is quite right about the fact that this article is excessive. The "sources" are just guff adduced to satisfy in name only our standards at WP:RS. Sadly, it looks as if a successful canvass effort from the ARS keepmongers will lead to a no consensus keep. Eusebeus (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am curious, in your experience, has labeling editors ever been an effective strategy in anything you have done here on wikipedia? I have abandonded such narrow and devisive labels, and counsel others not to use such labels, because it never has been very effective for me. 158.70.145.112 (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Question;' Does anyone have any practical suggestions for how a merge consensus can be kept from turning into an actual delete by stages (or, in the other direction, keeping too much , though that is rarer)? if people who like this material could be confident of that , it would be easier to get merges--as Eusebeus, A Nobody, MQS, and I all want to do? DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I reject the question that DGG presents above. Characterization of merging as deletion by stages is something totally unrelated to the actual act of merging. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas G. Baker III[edit]

Thomas G. Baker III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No actor appears in IMDB. No ghits outside of an obit and a court case. Appears to be a hoax. Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raffael (blogger)[edit]

Raffael (blogger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GNEWS and with limited GHits. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony. My objections are on the talk page of the article. No point repeating myself. I believe he is notable enough to merit a mention. Doesn't have to be more than a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pencilstapler (talk • contribs) 13:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted to make way for a redirect. This probably didn't need to be taken to AfD - any admin can do this sort of thing.. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Bell[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ryan Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Replacing a badly-formatted AfD. Original nominator's rationale:

-- Eastmain (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_29&oldid=1142645607"