Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 21

< 20 February	22 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Youngs[edit]

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

Delete. The reason I nominated this article is because although his story may have helped inspire a film, it doesn't seem to make him notable himself. I saw teachers as coming under the section, and criteria, given below on WP:BIO, which, from the article, he doesn't seem to meet:

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

He could also, possibly, be considered under:

Any biography The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

However, although there is the film, he has not made a widely recognized contribution in in his specific field, which is education.

A Google search also uncovered very little information on him, mainly just a couple of sites listing all the people buried at Sleepy Hollow. I think the best option would perhaps be a redirect to the character Youngs was said to have inspired, as I believe he has his own article, or to the film's article. But as it stands, I don't think it meets the criteria for its own article. Boleyn (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan of the Wood[edit]

Listing at AFD to prevent relisting of prod notices. Listed here, and here, under "No indication that the subject meets notability guidelines for inclusion." Basically a finalist to an award with only 6 worldcat holdings. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With regrets, but no way to establish notability. We tried. §FreeRangeFrog 01:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is much to be read about this book, and as much I love literature, being a finalist just doesn't push it to notability standards for books. ^Law_shoot! 04:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This book does not pass the criteria for book notability. It lacks significant coverage and was not a finalist for a legitimate award, as stated in a discussion which FreeRangeFrog has linked above. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I think it is important to emphasize that the National “Best Books” 2008 Awards are a promotional scam. Authors pay a $69 fee to enter and, as stated on the website, are guaranteed Media Coverage for Every Entry. Essentially, every paid entry is a "finalist". As editors, we need to be wary of these kinds of pseudo-awards -- they are simply advertisements posing as some measure of notability. The bottom line is: legitimate awards (Caldecott, Newbery, etc.) do not require payment. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete refs are own sites, Barnes & Noble, and this pseudo prize. No indication of notability per WP:BK. It's a pity that when the author blanked it after the initial prod it wasn't db-authored instead of restored - would have saved all this trouble. Still, I'm glad to have learned about the National “Best Books” Awards. JohnCD (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete --Orange Mike | Talk 23:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all above reasons. My thanks to those identifiers of the National Best Books Awards. I'll be watching for that now.... Peridon (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamida Khanom[edit]

Non notable academic. Notability is not established in the article. Subject's notability is an academic, and role in spreading female education in East Pakistan/Bangladesh is not established. Article creator is related to subject by his own admission. No reliable source provided to established notability. Ragib (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I had earlier prod'd the article, however, the creator of the page contested the prod. So, I have afd'd it. --Ragib (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per nom and WP:bio and wp:n Letsdrinktea (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice person who should be congratulated, but who passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per abscence of WP:N and WP:RS A person should be notable (mentioned in a reliable paper in a significant way) to merit an article here. --Artene50 (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming 9th Studio Album (Anti-Flag)[edit]

Another article for the HAMMER. No title, no better release date than "2009", sourced only to blogs. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one source listed, and being a blog, it's not reliable. Article fails WP:CRYSTAL. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smash it with the hammer. MuZemike 01:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another day, another hammer worthy article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Stop… Hammertime. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. tomasz. 19:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article had been transwikied and then deleted from Wikisource, http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Transwiki:English_manors&action=edit&redlink=1 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 11:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki:English manors[edit]

This page has been stuck in Transwiki land for a few years now. It needs love, or better, deletion. It started out as an essay of sorts, possibly a copyvio, then was moved to its current location in order to be transwikied to WikiSource. They almost certainly don't want it. We don't want it. --- RockMFR 22:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, personal essay, original research. JohnCD (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as JohnCD. Someone's personal essay, and I don't even know what it's about; nothing salvageable here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment where's the Transwiki cleanup page anyways? And doesn't this go to WP:MFD, since it's not an article yet? (Well, I don't remember ever seeing a Transwiki space page listed here) 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Complete transwiki to Wikisource. That is what was supposed to be done back in 2006. If Wikisource doesn't want it, they can delete it, but since a transwiki over there was requested a while back, we might as well complete the transwiki. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't WikiSource only take previously published material? And, if so, can anyone find evidence that this is actually published material, rather than just something written by a user? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Challenor School[edit]

Non-notable. Bdb484 (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article doesn't assert notability. As a side note, if there's no online content about the place, then it's perfectly acceptable to use printed resources without an online counterpart. --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC) --Sigma 7 (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non encyclopedic article on something unnotable. Letsdrinktea (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be the main resource in Barbados for people with a developmental disorder. Perhaps the article should be moved to Barbados Association for Children With Intellectual Challenges, the charity which operates the school. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have moved the page since the article is on the charity, of which the school is a part, cleaned it up, and added references. It should be noted that the school also provides adult training. As Eastmain states, this is Barbados' only resource in the field and it took an act of parliament to set it up. Time should be given so that local sources can be found. I see no good reason to delete what, in that country, is an significant organisation. TerriersFan (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher lin[edit]

This is an article about a talented young violinist but its assertions of notability are as a part of a national high school Honor Orchestra. I can't find WP:RS on the Honor Orchestra itself. Being a part of a possibly notable ensemble is not enough under WP:BIO, and the ensemble's notability is unclear right now.

The accolades are impressive and promising, but it doesn't satisfy WP:BIO right now. Shadowjams (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lack of reliable sources makes this guy non-notable, per WP:BLP. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable by Wikipedia standards. The sources given in the article barely mention him (for example, [1] and [2]) and even if they did I'm not sure these competitions would show notability. The only thing that might is this supposed review by Alvin Chen, but a google search for it turns up no results but a Wikipedia mirror, so for all I know it was just the school paper or something. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordin Sparks Second Album[edit]

I've nominated this because the primary author is unclear on the various deletion types, and it's resulting in some confusion. This is an inevitable nom in any case.

The album is unannounced and doesn't have a release date, or a name. It has just a press release and scattered statements about its upcoming comment. This is too early, especially when the name isn't even the title. Shadowjams (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shadowjams beat me to the nom while I was reviewing the hangon tag. :) Fails WP:HAMMER. We really at least need a name before we have an article. Until then, any bits that can be confirmed in independent, reliable sources can go in the Jordin Sparks article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to my delete: There's already a section on this album at Jordin_Sparks#Second_album.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete STOP → Hammer Time! flaming lawyer 21:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I prodded the article for failing WP:HAMMER and still feel it fails that and WP:MUSIC. Aspects (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smash it with the hammer! MuZemike 01:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
D If there's any useful content it can be merged to Jordin Sparks. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Stop… Hammertime (Two of these in less than five minutes? Yikes.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It looks as though this film could be notable, but the article currently needs a good deal of work to establish this. Right now, there aren't enough strong arguments one way or another to close this with a certain result, so no consensus, defaulting to keep. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Mayor (film)[edit]

This article had a previous AFD under a different name (here), which resulted in delete. Someone recreated the article, but added a ref <gasp!>. All the ref says is that the movie does exist, but fails to establish any notability. flaming lawyer 21:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source doesn't say enough about the movie. There's no IMDb listing, and the only instance of an official website I can find is marked by Firefox as an attack site. Still, a general lack of reliable sources makes this article non-notable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for expansion. Lack of an IMDB listing means little as they are not the "keepers of all film"... just a starting point toward WP:NFF... which this now seems to tickle as I have added a second citation.... and I never even heard of this film before. All depends on how deep one searches, I suppose. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael. I find it curious that when editors add IMDb as a reason to keep, editors who support deletion state IMDb does not show notability. Now this has been reversed, since it is not on IMDb, it is not notable. Which is it? Ikip (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not curious at all. IMDB isn't a reliable source because it's anonymously written and hardly verified, but it's so incredibly broad and indiscriminate in its inclusion that something has to be pretty danged obscure to not be included. It's like the Google test when applied to recent pop culture or computer-related topics; there are lots of things which don't merit an article which have Google counts that need to be expressed in scientific notation, but if Google hasn't heard of it, it may be a hoax/minor project/self-promotion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, Google has heard of it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wait-and-see on this topic anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way, an IMDB listing is necessary but not sufficient. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and update when film released. EagleFan (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only two meager sources for a not yet released student film (WP:CRYSTAL anyone?) based on a guy who got 200 votes, running for mayor. --Sloane (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not to steal your thunder, but it is not WP:Crystal nor a student film, as Travis Irvine is a graduate of University of Ohio, no longer a student, annouced his intention to document his mayoral campaign when he announced his candidacy, has made the film, it is now in post production, and is already slated for a release in a couple months by Troma Entertainment. Crystal? Nah. And though not (yet) added, there are a number of articles that speak toward the filmmaker, his films, and this film in particular, and the film . And a film based upon a the campaign of a guy who got only 200 votes?[3] So what? If it meets WP:NFF, it meets WP:NFF. [4][5][6][7], et al. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles cited generally seem to cover the guy's previous movie and his run for mayor, not this future film. They also seem to be primarily local coverage. I've seen much much worse cases for inclusion, but I still think this one falls short. If it manages to receive additional coverage in the future, the article can always be recreated.--Sloane (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - it doesn't matter if it doesn't have an imdb entry or is a student film. What establishes notability is reliable sources writing about it which provides objective evidence that the film has been noted. This one just squeaks by. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A film documenting someone whose article is redlinked is rather unlikely to pass muster. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redlinks could be removed, but I rather thought they were intended that act toward encouraging new articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unreleased film on a non-notable individual. JamesBurns (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable individual? Sorry. Cursory search find multiple sources toward individual's notability and his filmwork:

Butcher, Bonnie (July 5, 2007). "Irvine joins race for Bexley mayor". This Week. Retrieved 2009-02-24. - Irvine announces candidacy, Raised in Bexley, Bexley high school, graduate of Ohio University, Owns Overbites Pictures to specialize in low-budget films, Documentary plans of campaign, campaign slogan
DeMartini, Alayna (October 6, 2007). "Bexley mayor, City Council". Dispatch Politics. Retrieved 2009-02-24., Travis M. Irvine, 24; filmmaker; bachelor’s degree in communication studies, Ohio University.
"Jones joins Bexley mayorâ€™s race". Columbus Messenger. Retrieved 2009-02-22. - Bexley resident, took out mayoral petition
Butcher, Bonnie (November 2, 2007). "Mayoral candidates address seniors". This Week. Retrieved 2009-02-22. - addressed seniors, advocated using school facilities in creating a viable seniors center
"Bexley mayoral candidates meet in debate". Columbus Messenger. October 2007. Retrieved 2009-02-22. - Irvine appeal for younger voters to become involved in city government, pledged to return $30,000 of the mayor's $90,000 salary if elected, wants to see businesses other than banks locate on Main Street - particularly ones that appeal to young people and families.
Butcher, Donnie (November 6, 2007). "Brennan elected Bexley's new mayor". This Week. Retrieved 2009-02-22. - lost election, receiving 4.62 percent of 3,300 votes (nice try though)
Sadravi, Jaleh (November 8, 2007). "Bexley mayoral race finished; Brennan wins by fraction". Capital University Chimes. Retrieved 2009-02-22. - race included 24-year-old filmmaker Irvine
Feran, Tim (January 26, 2006). "Students land multiple showings of zombie raccoons". (reprint). The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2009-02-22. - Earlier film "Coons" made when Irvine a 22-year-old senior at OU, Bexley High graduate, city premiere at Drexel Gateway theatre in Columbus sponsored by Drexel Theaters Group abd annual Columbus International Film and Video Festival and then at 2006 TromaDance Film Festival in Salt Lake City, film shot in August 2006 in Columbus and Athens as musical comedy horror satire made for $5000, Irvine working as film intern in New York, film was inspired by a 2004 Florida camping trip
"Coons! Night of the Bandits of the Night (2005)". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-02-22. - Times overview of earlier film
Lisk, Jamie (February 11, 2009). "Coons! Night of the Bandits of the Night". film review. CrankedOnCinema. Retrieved 2009-02-22. - "Coons" cast crew production, festival premiere at 2006 TromaDance Film Festival, picked up for distribution by Troma Studios, great in-depth review of film and filmmaker
"Ohio University filmmakers premiere killer raccoon feature". Ohio University Outlook. May 17, 2007. Retrieved 2009-02-22. - Ohio UNiversity premiere of earlier film, list film background w/producers, reasonable review of film amd filmmaker
Jackson, Adam (February 10, 2006). "Hollywood fart joke on a tiny budget". The Lantern. Retrieved 2009-02-22. - background of creation of low-budget Coons, excellent review of film and filmmaker
Hazlett, Alexandra (September 8, 2008). "It's not human - and it wants your garbage!". The Athens News. Retrieved 2009-02-22. - excellent in-depth review of film and filmmaker, Troma acquiring film in 2006, Irvine talks of his film influences, scriptwriting in London after 2004 camping trip, backgound in how the created the coons, Overbites Pictures happy working with Troma, American Mayor in post-production, speaks toward funding
Martineau, Gail (2008-08-27). "This Week News : Bexley filmmaker to show movie at Drexel". www.thisweeknews.com. Retrieved 2009-01-25. - Speaks of Irvine having left Bexley for New York and the returned for Coons screening, mention of campaign documentary wrapping up, distribution of coons, creation of Overbites, Scianamblo co-producer of AM and about-to-graduate OH, Irvine hopes coons screening will help funding for AM, this is after Mayor eace over.

Non-notable individual? Sorry. He's not Spielburg or Lucas... but he passes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one of these is about Irvine himself, and it isn't even very long. All the others are general election articles or articles about the other movie Irvine made (almost all from student newspapers). So yes, non-notable individual.--Sloane (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ikip. RP459 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 11:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proud (John Stanley play)[edit]

Play with no insufficient reliable sources - yet. It may well acquire them after it premieres in April 2009, but at present ~~cannot~~ does not satisfy notability guide. Gonzonoir (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, copied from article talk page, should be regarded as vote to Keep: "I appreciate your concerns but you will find multiple precoursers to "PROUD" throughout the internet by simply Googling: Proud - a new comedy by John Stanley. It is not my intention to use wikipedia as a publicity tool but simply to arrange a simple and accessible place for people to read about the play and it's characters in more depth. I hope very much you will reconsider your decision to forward this page for deletion. Kind regards, Nic Gilder 637Productions (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

In response: Googling that exact phrase returns one hit. A Google search for Proud+play+"John Stanley"+gay returns more results, but almost none that constitute substantial coverage in reliable sources, which would be necessary to demonstrate the article's notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your position: if the article is deleted then so be it, however: Proud - a new comedy by John Stanley when googled currently gets results from remotegoat.co.uk, indielondon.co.uk, outeverywhere.co.uk as well as the link to John Stanley's own blog where his CV can be read. There is also an interview with Mr Stanley going live on monday 23rd February on the whatsonstage.com website should further notability be required. Thank you for your patience in this matter, Kind Regards, Nic Gilder

Comment The same text seems to appear in outeverywhere, gaynewsuk and indielondon references to Proud. This is apparently from a press relesae, and therefore not giving reliable independent sources. Peridon (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User 673Productions posted another comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mcawans which was presumably intended for this debate, so I'm copying it here again:

But surely "notability" in this instance merely refers to the existence of the work, namely "PROUD" by John Stanley. The simple fact that it is listed with performance dates, venues and times, plus synopses from several sources confirms that the Play exists. This is not an article commenting on the worth of the Play as a piece of Theatre and therefore needs no reviews. As a reference tool, Wikipedia is supposed to allow browsers to call up articles of fact...since so many organisations, including Ambassadors Theatres and Above The Stag Theatre have placed "PROUD" on their websites, the Play must exist. That is all this entry is currently about and therefore all that needs notability: in the future, reviews and comments may be added. Kind regards, Nic Gilder

And in response again: yes, it's clear that the play exists, but notability is a higher standard than existence. The play must have received substantial coverage in reliable sources to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. What we have to discuss here is whether the sources available meet our reliability standards and whether their coverage is substantial. So far it looks as though they're mainly press releases in non-major sources, which I don't think satisfies the standard: others may disagree, and the purpose of this AfD is to discuss this and reach consensus. Please read the notability guideline for more indepth discussion of this standard. Also, if you have references that constitute substantial coverage in reliable sources, please add them to the article. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It says somewhere in Wikipedia's rules that mere existence is not a guarantee of an article. I've written short plays. They have been performed. Are they notable enough for inclusion? No. Am I making a fuss? No. Will I write articles about them if they achieve national recognition? No. Someone else will. The play in question here cannot be notable yet. It hasn't been publicly performed yet. It certainly is getting some publicity. That's to be expected if an audience is wanted. However, Wikipedia is not a directory, a what's-on, or a free web-host. If this play reaches the stage and gets acclaim beyond the audience size likely at its earliest performances there will be a different reaction to an article. Above The Stag Theatre is (from what I can make out) a 50 seat venue above a pub. (I've had ten times that in a house and don't claim notability.) A new play by Willy Russell could achieve notability before performance. By John Stanley? No. I can't find anything much about him outside this article and the associated references. I believe this article is promotional puff. Peridon (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Websters Dictionary notability definition noun 1. pl. -·ties a person who is notable or prominent 2. the quality of being notable I refer the gentleman to the definition of notability as defined in Websters Dictionary, reference 2. “The quality of being notable”

The web definition of notable being: noteworthy: worthy of notice

Does the gentlemen presume to determine this work is unworthy of notice? I question on what authority he makes this assumption. PROUD is a piece of new writing that tackles prevalent issues concerning societies views on gay identity and how this impacts upon people coming to terms with their sexuality within the world today. Are you actually presuming that this issue or a drama tackling this subject matter is unworthy of notice?

This entry is not promoting performances of the play. It is offering Wikipedia’s readership a factual synopsis of the piece. Therefore your somewhat unfair statement suggesting this is ‘promotional puff’ has little relevance to the issue being debated here – which as I understand it is whether “PROUD – A New Comedy by John Stanley” is: a) factually correct in it’s content b) is worthy of notice

The issue here is surely nothing to do with venue size, whether your own works have achieved any notability or whether you have heard of the writer before this piece. Incidentally, John Stanley is a professional writer whose credits include Television (Family Affair, Doctors), Film (Die) and Stage (This Is How A Heart Breaks) to name but a few. Your ignorance of his Curriculum Vitae is not the point in question here. Nic Gilder

Reply: to be clear, we're working here to the specific Wikipedia guideline on notability, which is a rule for determining whether or not articles should be included. It does not correspond to your dictionary definition and it doesn't attempt to reflect the endless possible senses of the term, but it's the rule we use here and it's actually pretty straightforward. Please read the notability guideline. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The size of the venue is relevant to the potential notability. The current notability consists, so far as I can see, of press release material. My ignorance of John Stanley's CV is down to my not having found him amongst the other John Stanleys who seem to have higher g-ratings - which doesn't give me the impression that he is very notable. I can only go on what I find. Basically, the play has not yet been performed. As I said, a new work by Willy Russell would have a good claim to notability. A new work by Pinter definitely would - on the grounds that he is dead. We at Wikipedia act as a filter. If we didn't, there would be thousands of pages containing nothing more valuable than 'Shaun is AAAAWWWWSSSSOOOMMMEEE!!!!'. That is an obvious case for deletion. When it comes to less clear-cut issues, articles come to AfD (here). As gonzonoir points out, notability here is a Wikipedia definition and Webster has no part in it. This process of considering articles is not a voting process. It is people who are good at searching and reading between lines examining things, sometimes changing their minds as the process goes on, and in the end a consensus is established. As to promotional issues - are you really trying to tell me that you aren't out to get bums on seats? Sorry, statements like 'All copyright to PROUD is currently owned by 6:37 Productions and therefore any enquiries concerning the script should be directed to them.' indicate a finger in the pie from persons with 'Conflict of Interest' as defined in Wikipedia policies (once more Webster is irrelevant). Peridon (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. There is a good chance the subject of this article will reach notability standards once it opens, but very few are the works of drama that are notable before they open. Maybe a work by Pinter or Albee, but not by a comparatively less known playwright Vartanza (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete; I have just used the article for more information on the play after googling the play and playwright. I know that early this year, 2009, it'll be performing. So with not only its existance, being performed, and people like me searching and requiring the information on this site believe that it should not be deleted. One has to be carefull about the comments made about deleting the article as you wonder whether playwrights without articles on their plays allow this to influence their judgement and become bias. — This appears to be a single purpose edit by an IP number user

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mcawans[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable, unsourced. TheAE talk/sign 20:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Was in the process of adding a prod when you added the afd. No third party reliable sources appear to discuss these individuals, so not notable. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Removed comment intended to be posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proud (John Stanley play)] Gonzonoir (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references support weak claim of notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Big chunks of this article are copied from their myspace page. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roxie Ramos[edit]

Non-notable actress... Zero G-news hits, and a normal Google search can't find anything about her either... Fails WP:BIO & WP:V... Adolphus79 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable at best; would expect some results from this search term, or at least this one, if the article's claim was true. Gonzonoir (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources to indicate notability. Her claim to fame wouldn't be sufficient to meet notability if it could be verified but searches turn up no information to even verify that one tenuous claim of notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Video games[edit]

Someone has written an article on a Wikiproject in the main space with a shiny new account. They're obviously familiar with policies such as WP:RS and WP:N, look at all those references! Only not a single one of those references makes any reference to the Wikiproject, and are instead general articles about Wikipedia. I've written about the Edge article here, and the other sources are available online. This project is not notable, there are no references, and "criticism" should just fall into Criticism of Wikipedia. - hahnch e n 20:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the referenced articles are actually about the WikiProject; perhaps the article should be covered in an article like Video games on Wikipedia? (although that's hardly likely to ever exist...) flaming lawyer 21:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,(note to other editors, this is not the VG wikiproject page, but a mainspace article about it, in case you are confused), critiques should be merged to the notes page. Article creation seems very WP:POINTy given the recent discussion on the Edge magazine article and knowing the feelings of those involved, but not enough to sniff out sockpuppetry. --MASEM 21:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced (references are not about the Wikiproject), and although WP:WAWI doesn't prohibit writing about Wikipedia, I think articles about individual Wikiprojects are too much like navel-gazing. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Just lacks proper sources. Versus22_talk 23:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like disruption of Wikipedia to make a point or just plain disruption. I sense some sort of skull-quackery going on, as I find it odd that the creator's only contribs consist of creating the main article, then creating the talk page complete with WikiProject tags ~~(as well as assessing the article as Top-priority)~~, and placing it under the New Article Announcements page. Somebody is obviously disgruntled about something. MuZemike 00:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- New articles are supposed to be listed on the New Article Announcements page. SharkD (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I know that. However, looking at the edit history of WP:VG/N, I smell something fishy in that this user has posted this on that page; that normally doesn't happen. MuZemike 06:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was User:MrKIA11 who rated the article as Top-Priority, technically. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, yes, you are right. Didn't look closely enough at the talk page's history, just at the creator's contribs. MuZemike 21:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and expand the second paragraph to Criticism of Wikipedia. (I'm not sure where exactly in the article it should be merged to, however. Maybe a special "video games" section.) As for claims that the sources don't concern the project specifically... well, this is technically true, but seems a bit like WP:WIKILAWYERING. The sources could be understood to be with respect to editors of video-game related articles, most of whom would fall under this project's banner. Also, the second source does quote the Talk page of one of our task forces. Finally, we are all members of the project and should therefore be seen as being biased, just as any other person would be concerning an article about themselves. Membership on Wikipedia doesn't give us carte blanche in this regard. I know that users MASEM and MuZemike specifically are both listed under Category:WikiProject Video games members. SharkD (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources don't mention the wikiproject. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh noes! What if the journalists cited also write about this article and AfD in their blogs? That would make it notable, and someone might make an article about the article! Delete - as Megana points out, the sources don't explicitly mention the Wikiproject itself. However, it might be instructive to link to those sources from somewhere in the Wikiproject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing that comes close to being notable in this article is the "criticism" the project has attracted from those three sources, and even then it's not directed at the project itself (it's not even mentioned at all) and not really notable because it appears to just be some complaints from butthurt MUD fanatics. --.:Alex :. 17:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion indicates that the article relies on two sources for notability. It also appears to be agreed that one of these is a passing mention that can be deemed "trivial coverage". Relying on one source does not meet the notability for websites guideline that requires multiple reliable sources. As a result, this discussion indicates deletion. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rate My Poo[edit]

Notability is not clear. May fail WP:WEB but it is impossible to know without the ability to review the provided references to see if the coverage is more than trivial. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authors Keep, I created this in good faith knowing it passes WP:WEB. The two references are full length articles about the website itself. You can see a small preview of the full length articles at: Kansas City + Centre Daily Times. Both are reliable sources and are two non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.--Otterathome (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

second alternative link.--Otterathome (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A local newspaper's web site of the day doesn't seem to confer notability. The KC link comes up with an error, so I cannot comment on that one. I'll keep trying. If more reliable sources can be provided, I would certainly concede notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And just why not? I think you either disagree with WP:WEB or don't understand it, in that case you should be at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web).--Otterathome (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that this topic does not meet WP:WEB #2 or #3. Should be no argument about that. So the argument focuses on #1. The question is whether the coverage is non-trivial. From the reference that I can verify, the coverage appears to be trivial because it is only a report about a web site of the day in a local newspaper. It doesn't seem reasonable that every one of the 365 web sites that this local newspaper nominates as its site of the day would be notable. We don't know what criteria they use. It seems like it is just a brief summary of the nature of the content which is an exception to notability under #1. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Otterathome -- MichiganCharms (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Otterathome is right it passes WP:WEB and should not be up for deletion. Kyle1278 (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Any evidence they are not just mentions, like a quote of a full paragraph? DGG (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The internet archive can't retrieve it because it has been blocked by the news site. Do we have another way to confirm this reference? The problem is that we are left with a preview of an article from a local newspaper .--J.Mundo (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (or redirect and merge into rotten.com). I'll bypass WP:WEB and argue straight from WP:N. As a website rmp is only semi-notable because it is only occasionally discussed by serious media, though from personal experience it is widely known. There's just not a whole lot to say about it. However, as an internet phenomenon the existence of the site and its shock content is something useful to note. Knowing that this and other shock sites like it exist is a non-trivial part of an encyclopedic understanding of the state of things on the Internet, and it is a service to the reader to provide that understanding. For that context, here is a minor mention in a major paper.[8] Per this salon article[9] (an in depth discussion of rmp's sister sites and parent company, written before the creation of rmp) this is part of a family of similar sites run by a single company that, collectively, raise significant issues of legal jurisdiction over websites, free speech, etc., which is why even if this particular article is deleted the content should be preserved in some form and added instead to the parent article.Wikidemon (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that argument supports a merge to shock site more than keeping an individual article on the subject. Shock sites are notable, and this is, I guess (never having visited the site), a fairly good example of one. But by your argument, it is more valuable as information on shock sites in general than as information about this specific one. JulesH (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT?--Otterathome (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no references. None that work, at least. I've found a Centre Daily Times link, but being the "website of the day" doesn't make you notable. Otherwise we'd create 365 articles a year just for that. :) --Conti|✉ 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an secondary link. References that "don't work" is very different from no references. Your argument has now been invalidated.--Otterathome (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you added said link? All the references in the article are still not working for me. --Conti|✉ 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who are we kidding? Two dead reference from local newspapers that only mention the subject, one of them as "site of the week". No evidence of significant coverage to meet WP:Notability. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not mentions, they are articles on the website. So they do meet WP:Notability. Your argument has now been invalidated.--Otterathome (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Try to find significant and reliable coverage that establish notability of this website instead of "invalidating" delete arguments. A website can reach a worldwide audience so finding sources should be an easy task. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted per G7. Skier Dude (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current international football competitions[edit]

This is a non-needed listed and would be much better off being a category, if ones like Category:2010 in football (soccer) don't suffice. Computerjoe 's talk 19:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article creator has blanked the page twice ([10][11]) but I don't know if we can speedy it because it's weird (the first time he blanked it and then restored it; the second time a single-purpose IP editor, probably the same person, restored it). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G7, so tagged. Author has (at 21:56) blanked the page four times; though one isn't supposed to blank during AfD, I think that can be taken as request to delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The US gov releasing a puff-piece on how charitable their citizens are is hardly independent. yandman 09:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Osman[edit]

I don't think his news coverage constitutes notability under WP:BIO. Some are just glorified press releases! Computerjoe 's talk 18:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was thinking about nominating this article myself... the external links provided are nothing more than puff pieces, and I can find nothing in G-news about him... fails notability as well as verifiability concerns... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The author contested PROD. I never got around to nominating it over here (timezones and whatnot). Computerjoe 's talk 18:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now: I was gonna say delete, but the various links at the bottom of this page look like they might be reliable sources—especially [12], and maybe [13] and [14]. In any case, the article needs major cleanup (it introduces him as the founder of some lame company, but it appears he's much more notable, if he's notable at all, for his humanitarian work in Afghanistan).rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The US government coverage is just basically a glorified press release and doesn't meet my expectations, as it isn't reliable. Computerjoe 's talk 19:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A press release from whom? Osman's business? I did a quick search for "Howard Cincotta" and "Deborah Conn," the authors listed on the USgov page, and while the second name didn't turn up any hits, the first appears to be an actual journalist (his name comes up on several other news stories). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US government's. America.gov isn't really what I'd class as media, just government. Computerjoe 's talk 19:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Read the article, it is poorly written, and the reliability is terrible. Macromonkey (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Poorly written" is not a reason for deletion (like I said above, it needs a lot of cleanup). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reliability of sources is though. Computerjoe 's talk 21:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not impressed with the quality of the references and the article reads like his resume. I do think that if someone wants to write a neutral, well-referenced article on him they should be able to ignore the rules and create the article after it gets deleted. Right now I see no indication of his notability, either by having numerous reliable sources or implicit. I don't see how someone arranging 100 trips to Afghanistan for a relief effort (or whatever) makes someone implicitly notable. Royal broil 01:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This guy might possibly become an ambassador to afghanistan soon. i listened to him speak at various government agencies in washington dc, he's only 26 years old and speaks to leaders and military commanders such as General Schloesser, General Mckiernan, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.113.138 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources that have listed authors and there are tons of wikipedia articles about random people, this gentleman has an article written by the state department and is very notable with regards to the short stub. I say keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.113.138 (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Oeuvre[edit]

Band has only released one EP, possibly self-released, which has no listing at allmusic, no professional reviews found at metacritic, and notability not found in gsearch or gnews search.

Bringing this to AfD because there's ambiguity over whether this meets Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles #6.

Member Ronny Paige was a member of several other bands. Five.Bolt.Main has some marginal notability, but he was only the touring guitarist. Rev Theory is a bit more notable, but again he was only the touring guitarist.

Chad Szeliga has a better claim of meeting #6, being the drummer for Breaking Benjamin. (Switched (band) is only marginally notable.)

So, we're into the "common sense applies" part of #6. Do these members make this band notable simply by their membership? My gut says no, but I leave it up to discussion. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one (apparently very small) EP out, and google search turns up no reliable sources (and even of the non-RS pages that come up, none of them really say anything about this band, they're just Myspace, torrents, etc.). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1978 African Cup of Nations (squads)[edit]

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003 FINA Men's World Water Polo Championship Squads and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandy World Championship 2007 squad lists this is a non-notable grouping. Delete per Wikipedia:NOT#STATS Benefix (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, Wikipedia is not a sports almanack. Stifle (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now I know I shouldn't resort to WP:WAX, but we have squad lists for every FIFA World Cup and UEFA European Football Championship, so why not for the African Cup of Nations. – PeeJay 00:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- we already have ACN squad lists for most other ACN tournaments - 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008, although with "xxxx African Cup of Nations (squads)" and "xxxx African Cup of Nations squads" and "xxxx Africa Cup of Nations squads" some naming convention might be applied--ClubOranje^T 07:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PeeJay. Giant Snowman 00:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is a sports almanac, per the first pillar and lists such as this have grown to featured list status, such as 2007 Cricket World Cup squads. Those other two articles mentioned should probably be taken to WP:DRV. Neier (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first pillar doesn't mention it's a sports almanac, also the Cricket World Cup is the biggest Cricket tournament in the world, a list of rosters there is a must. Secret ^account 14:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as factual verifiable record of participation and per above. Information like this has in the past been included in the tournament page and in most cases been broken out to separate squad page to keep tournament page to manageable size. Significantly important tournament in scheme of world football to argue interest.--ClubOranje^T 07:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable tournament. --Shakehandsman (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about a tournament, it's about the squads of the tournament. I guess it might be notable enough soccer tournament for it's own split-off page for it's roster, unlike the other two tournaments which most of the players aren't notable. Weakish Keep but cleanup. Secret ^account 14:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above about WP:WAX. Why pick on the ACN when two other large international football tournaments recieve the same treatment? World Cup and UEFA EFC (which hasn't been going as long as the ACN) both have lists of squads and are very useful provided they are full of information. If we start deleting ACN we might as well start deleting EFC while we are at it, especially considering the example I gave only had 4 teams competing. Uksam88 (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lewis (teaching assistant)[edit]

A single interview in a local newspaper does not convey notability. Fails WP:N, maybe comes under WP:ONEEVENT also. Tassedethe (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 15 minutes of fame, but this isn't notability. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This man is not notable, so certainly doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. I would suspect that the creator of the article is either a close friend of or the man himself. Macromonkey (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let us wish this man a lot of luck, but remove the article from Wikipedia. It's a failure of WP:N, not a WP:ONEEVENT, in my opinion, as it's not clear that the event was itself noteworthy. Vartanza (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW and bad-faith nomination. Non-admin closure. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three Faiths Forum[edit]

Blatant advertising by Single Purpose Account Threefaithsforum - Rozenwigg (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Rozenwigg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, WP:N Letsdrinktea (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been here for some time, and doesn't strike me as blatant advertising at all (in its current form). The article at present doesn't state where this organisation operates or how big it is, so notability could be an issue. I note that the promoter of this deletion has only edited in this present context, which is not against rules - but possible a case of pot and kettle... The single purpose account edits by someone with a name that could be referred for admin consideration are not a reason to delete a long established article. Peridon (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. This doesn't look like blatant advertising, and the SPA connection doesn't seem to be too relevant (let's call it canceled out by the SPA that nominated this). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not quite advertising, but it could do with a re-write —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macromonkey (talk • contribs) 20:42, 21 February 2009
Speedy keep nom by an SPA does not inspire confidence. I would have done a NAC on this myself but I guess there is a tiny chance that someone might !vote delete. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per nom. Nomination for Single Purpose Account by a Single Purpose Account is just the pot calling the kettle black there...--Unionhawk (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I ran a Google news search, and came up with multiple references for this group, for example this one. If the article is improved and referenced it should definitely meet notability guidelines.Wacko Jack O 10:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a rewrite, but not deletion. The article's creator is not relevant to the subject's inherent notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. EagleFan (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Appears to be a referencing issue - the sources exist, but not in the article. Suggest incorporating them as soon as possible Fritzpoll (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neoconservatism in the People's Republic of China[edit]

Neologism: Term was used in a book by Joseph Fewsmith to refer to a current trend in Chinese thinking, but could find no other use in this context since 2003. Unrelated to general use of term. A Google search of the original Chinese word 新保守主义 found every article used the term to refer to American neo-conservatism. Neither Fewsmith nor his writings have own WP articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The English language article provided as a source does not use the word "neoconservative." The topic seems to be notable enough but needs to be discussed under a different title. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy as original research. Unless sources are provided, I'm wary to say anything about the existence of a "neoconservative movement" in China; as far as I can tell, this is just one person's using political buzzwords to describe his/her personal impressions about the political climate there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article doesn't make sense. It argues that the movement wants reform... that doesn't sound like a conservation or a reversion to former practices. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator failed to notify article's creator, as is customary and recommended in WP:AFD. As this editor is active, I suggest we do not close until we hear what s/he has to say.--

Cerejota (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Creator has now been notified. User_talk:Roadrunner#AfD Neoconservatism in the People's Republic of China The Four Deuces (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to another wiki. If the creator wants his own wiki [without blatant advertising here], he should use http://www.yourwiki.net, and the content can be transferred under the GFDL. Original research can be good, but not here -

WP:NOR takes precedence. --Litherlandsand (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I would be happy to change if I see a Chinese Wiki Entry of this "theory," which I fail to locate any with RS. TheAsianGURU (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - I'm the original creator on the topic. It's an obscure term in the West, but isn't certainly not OR or a neologism. Here is a scholarly discussion on the topic Roadrunner (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CN&ei=Ge2kSdrzFpmatwfBqJHbBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA72,M1

There are two entire books on the topic

And entire papers on the topic

http://www.onderzoekinformatie.nl/en/oi/nod/onderzoek/OND1316090/
Order and Stability in Social Transition: Neoconservative Political Thought in Post-1989 China - see google scholar

And one popular article

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/28/080728fa_fact_osnos

It is true that since 2004, the use of neoconservative has been overshadowed by the US use of the term, but that is why it's even more important to have an article on it. The other thing is that the term "neo-conservative" was popular in the 1990's to contrast with the "conservative Marxist-Leninist" ideology of Li Peng and Chen Yun, and but since the mid-2000's, you are more likely to see the movement labelled merely conservative.

Also, here are Chinese articles where the term is used

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_44fb08f30100b9sb.html - A Neoconservative's Changing views toward Chinese governance
http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/16373913.html - What is the relationship between New Confucianism and Chinese Neo-Conservatism?
http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-HDXB200504015.htm - Tang Hao-ming's Historical Novel Writing in the Field of New Conservatism

One other thing to note is that if you do a Chinese google search on Neo-conservatism and get Donald Rumseld, you will invariably have the article refer to *American Neo-conservatism*. This is because the term "neo-conservative" in Chinese is already a known movement. Yes if you do the google search you get the American movement, but if you go into the deep pages and look at the scholarly literature, you start finding the Chinese movement.

Also the fact that I've been able to pull up about a dozen scholarly works and two entire books about a movement that no one else has heard of before, is precisely why there needs to be an article on it, and why it shouldn't be deleted. I'll volunteer to do a rewrite to include all of these links and update the article.

Can I convince people to change their votes?

Roadrunner (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also you get a lot more Chinese hits if you exclude "meiguo" and then skip the first page. Here is more articles that clearly refer to the Chinese movement

http://www.cul-studies.com/community/shaoyanjun/200605/3917.html - Neoconservatism and Its Collective lack of Goalss
http://www.wyzxsx.com/Article/Class17/200712/28995.html - New Left and Conservatives - Allies or Enemies
http://cn.happycampus.com/docs/983404227901@hc03/25840 - Neoconservatism and Chinese culture

and another entire book in Chinese

http://www.lunwentianxia.com/product.sf.3687041.1/ - New Conservatism and 1990 s Literature

and New conservatism as a literary movement

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/new_literary_history/v028/28.1chao.html - Post-Isms and Chinese New Conservatism

and someone has gotten a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research to study the topic

http://www.onderzoekinformatie.nl/en/oi/nod/onderzoek/OND1305056/print

and a conference panel in 2001 on the topic

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event_summary&event_id=3744

I can go on all night and get you about a 100 more links. But I hope I've made my point.....

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term 新保守主义 also translates as "New conservatism", which appears to be used in much of the literature, including many of the sources the author cites. My 1993 Webster's Dictionary defines neo-conservative as "(1955) : a former liberal espousing political conservatism". However the term did not become well used in English until recently. I would suggest the article be re-named "New Conservatism (People's Republic of China)" unless it can be shown that there is a consensus in calling them "neo-conservatives" in English. I agree with the author that the article needs more detail and also note that the the "New Conservatism" is not, as the article implies, a current political movement. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closed a few hours early per SNOW. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SamAndDan[edit]

Originally PRODded by me as a non-notable podcast with no sources in article. Nothing in the news or on scholar. — neuro^(talk) 15:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I'm going to err on the side of caution and say there is an assertion of significance, but it's not backed up by independent sources. Additionally, based on the username of the original editor, there is a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What Fred said. A most muscular delete here, I think. X MarX the Spot (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should have been Speedied. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't have. We're not here to bite users, and this doesn't fit neatly into a criterion. — neuro^(talk) 16:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non-notable. Tavix (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it is only a question of notoriety then the argument is countered - it is successful and it is popular; iTunes listings speak for themselves surely. Danx360 (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, my mate's band is on iTunes, and they are about as notable as I am seventy feet tall. Being on iTunes does not imply notability in any way, shape, or form. — neuro^(talk) 18:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This podcast has existed for only three weeks, and no claim to notability is made in the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing to suggest notability, and agree with Fred about the evidence of a conflict of interest from the article's creator. -FaerieInGrey (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kastle[edit]

Delete Revised my edit. I agree with ALL reasons for deletion.

I propose the article "Richard Kastle" for deletion, based on the following:

1. The subject is not noteworthy. 2. The author of the article is apparently it's subject (see talk page at Article). 3. The article appears to be spam...self-promotion of it's author. Prof.rick (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - let's extend the benefit of the doubt here, why not? I see independent sources. Also the use of "hereby" in the "proposition" of this AfD galls a body somewhat, it does. X MarX the Spot (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi X: at the risk of being pedantic, I think the problem is the comma right after "article."

"hereby" and comma removed Prof.rick (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Xdenizen and "unsigned"...the issue here is clearly not one of the use of a particular word or the placement of a comma in the title! It's about the article! Before "extending the benefit of a doubt", let's do our homework! Scrutiny is essential to the reputation of Wikipedia. Prof.rick (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Signed to a major record label. Well sourced. Easily passes WP:MUSIC. Pburka (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kastle has apparently produced ONE album, in 1991. I don't know how successful the album was, but apparently he has had no recording contract since. Prof.rick (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two albums, according to Amazon, although the second is not on a major label. Also lots of press coverage.Pburka (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ONE recording on a major label is hardly grounds for "notability", particularly if the album was a flop! As for non-major labels, ANYONE can do that, ANYTIME! As for press coverage, check his website. There is just one clip from a newspaper appearing there: the presentation of a "musical scholarship" (when Kastle was a teenager) by the Mayor of Hialeth, Florida. Prof.rick (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:SPS, WP:BIO, and WP:N. Questionable notability, reads like a CV. Letsdrinktea (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This search suggests there is notability, in the form of newspaper articles over an extended period of time. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable likelihood of notability from the sources provided above. DGG (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Drmies's link suggests this person may barely pass the first criteria at WP:MUSIC. That being said, this is a non-notable person and I doubt this article will ever be expanded at all, it's a junk article. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment, due to the low exposure of this AfD, I suspect this will end up no consensus, do we really want a Wikipedia article on anyone that is mentioned in newspapers a couple times? That doesn't make one notable, it's a common occurance. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements as verified in reliable sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This is apparently a self-authored biography. Check on YouTube, "Hungarian Rhasody no 2 Richard Kastle Liszt with the Horowitz Cadenza". Here, Mike Caffey, who posted the item at YouTube, and who initiated this Wikipedia article, says:

"The most important notes ever created for a virtuoso are at the the climax of Liszt's most famous piece. Kastle's official web site has a new page that explains this as well as a page that explains the century of virtuoso failure with youtube time codes and faking methods. To get there click on more info next to the photo of Jay Leno and myself, then cick on the web site."

In fact, the picture is of Richard Kastle with Jay Leno. Is Mike Caffey a pseudonym for Richard Kastle? If so, this is a biography created by it's subject. Prof.rick (talk)

Don't vote in your own nomination, we already know you want to delete it. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, LonelyMarble! It's the first time I've found a need for AfD, and admit I'm still uncertain regarding priorities and procedures. I changed my "Delete" to "Note". I hope this is satisfactory. Please, don't go away...I may need more help and advice here!!! Thanks, Prof.rick (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Google news links mostly lead to barely two pages of articles not directly concerning Richard Kastle. Most of them already included in the current article. Also, the number of articles is slightly irrelevant considering they invariably say the same thing over and over, this is less to do with popularity and more to do with how Google works.

He doesn't appear to represent any kind of prominence in his field, anything mentioned of note is of course extremely common in the classical music world and indeed expected of any musician, which makes it even less noteworthy. On the subject of the Google news articles appearing over an extended period of time, I think someone may have neglected to notice that there is more than one Richard Kastle in the Google results. His two albums were not only less than popular, they are discontinued and have never been reissued. I think it needs to be made clear that we are not keeping this article out of some kind of good humoured fairness by letting it scrape through, either it's noteworthy or its not. Blurgezig (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with reasons for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvu2 (talk • contribs)
Keep Appears to meet the minimal notability criteria as a musician. Article is at this opoint definitely not a "puff piece" and may actually contain vandalism against the person. Last edit by asserted COI was a "blank page." And having a CD go "out of print" is common -- meaning quite little. In fact, the entire CD industry is on the brink of it itself. Collect (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Meets only one requirement of WP:BAND, #1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. And only barely meets that. -Freekee (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stay on topic please? We're not here to discuss CD industry politics. Whether or not it contained vandalism at any point has little to do with it being noteworthy. Blurgezig (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets every requirement for notability and verifiability. The objections appear to be coming from single use accounts created just to delete the article. See User:Blurgezig for example, who appears to have a personal grudge against Kastle based on the edits from the account. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find personal remarks such as that are not not permitted in discussion guidelines R A Norton, stay on topic. How recently my account was created is not the issue here. We are not here to interfere with anyones right to vote for a whatever they feel is suitable Blurgezig (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boggey[edit]

non-notable sport, probably one day kinda thing, can't find any mention of it anywhere else. Jac16888 ^Talk 14:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the sheer joy of the name. File under WP:IAR. X MarX the Spot (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can not find any indication this is a notable game, and can't figure out how ignoring that it is not notable and retaining this article will make wikipedia better. A new name 2008 (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look kid, if you can't see how having an article entitled "Boggey" will promote exuberance, intellectual rigour, vitality and a shiny coat amongst the WP rank-and-file, then I pity you. X MarX the Spot (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This game is something that may be played at hockey fields around the world. Only new thing is that we named it. Look at the hockey page on wikipedia and the 'Other forms of hockey'. It lists things not a lot of people have heard about. Purpose of this article is to show that this is a variant played, with an indication of how it can be played. Both to show people an alternative AND to show people already playing that it is played at other places as well... Give it a chance I would say... User:DvB 18:00, 21 February 2009 (GMT + 1)
Delete. WP:MADEUP. Pburka (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I quote "It started as a way of ending a regular hockey training or, when only a few people turned up at a training, as an alternative way of training.". No source, no notability, no point. And I don't want a shiny coat (or cold nose...) Peridon (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources and very questionable notability. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 19:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sound references can be added within the AfD period. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence for notability. (and I note the extremely dubious keep arguments, characteristic for something that is essentially nonexistent) DGG (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Hoax/Pure Vandalism--DFS454 (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. This is part of a pattern of vandalism by one person with multiple accounts. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shootout at taj hotel for further information. Uncle G (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Company 2[edit]

Yet another future-film hoax. Much of the article has been cut and pasted from Company (2002 film). No source cited (the IMDb entry for the 2002 film was added, but has been removed), and no reliable source can be found. The author MAYA BHAI (talk · contribs) has three other articles, all future-Bollywood-film hoaxes, all at AfD: - 1, 2, 3. His friend UNDERWORLD GANGSTER (talk · contribs) only contributes to these articles, mainly by taking off AfD templates. Suggest closing admin considers blocking both as vandalism-only timewasters. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. De728631 (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: the two accounts mentioned in the nomination have just been blocked as socks of each other. De728631 (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NFF. Is unsourced and most likely a hoax. Might be speedyable, given theediting history of contributors. Abecedare (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW Delete. Probable hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog (2010 film)[edit]

Another future-film hoax. No sources cited, and I can find no reliable ones - what Google finds is all blogs, Youtube and the like. PROD removed by IP. Fails WP:V and WP:NFF. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete no sources at all, not even unreliable ones (I think that you might be finding sources for the 2010 videogame). looks like a total hoax. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.—PC78 (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Also in list of VG-related deletion discussions.—« ₣M₣ » 20:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Google finds nothing about any film. (In fact, most of Google's first four pages refer to Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CRYSTAL, in fact it fails pretty well everything. --Ged UK (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This 'movie' is actually a series of theatrical openings and closings created by a user on YouTube. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NFF. — neuro^(talk) 00:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Neurolysis. I don't see any official announcement on the Sonic Team/Sega website(s). Versus22_talk 00:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Close per WP:SNOW. Spinach Monster (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW; the individual meets BIO as an FRP. (NAC) flaming lawyer 21:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M. F. Ashby[edit]

Individual lacks notability. Fails WP:BIO X MarX the Spot (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - of course he's notable - he's a Fellow of the Royal Society and you can't get much more notable than that as a scientist. 14:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjsmith (talk • contribs)
Keep but needs more meat on the bones of this article pablo_hablo. 14:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:BIO as an FRS. — neuro^(talk) 15:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being elected a Fellow of the Royal Society is a clear indication of notability, per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) which actually uses FRS as an example. I have added a citation from the RS confirming his fellowship. Maralia (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. FRS, what more do you want? Why was this even nominated? --Crusio (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) not just is it odd that it was nominated, but, even worse, it was previously nominated for speedy deletion (by someone else) although it included the FRS, and, what is much worse, actually speedy deleted by an administrator. DGG (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. This is part of a pattern of vandalism by one person with multiple accounts. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shootout at taj hotel for further information. Uncle G (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hathyar 10[edit]

Fails per WP:CRYSTAL. X MarX the Spot (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-This article is a hoax, just like the other two articles from the same user.
Delete - hoax, fails WP:NFF. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhoom 3 (film), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shootout at taj hotel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Company 2 for the author's other future-film hoaxes. JohnCD (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax? Likley. But even if not a hoax, it does not pass WP:NFF. That's good enough reason to send it on its way. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF and is a probably a hoax, given editing history of creator. Abecedare (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Crystal and NFF. --Ged UK (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Purple Onion[edit]

Deleted as an expired PROD, restored per request ([15]). Reason given for PROD: [16]. — Aitias // discussion 11:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously notable. Why are we having an afd? andy (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A very famous club that launched numerous entertainment careers - . The article needs referencing, but it doesn't belong here. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This club has been very important in the history of the West Coast music scene. I'm sure it is mentioned in many books. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legendary club. I added 6 quick references, which should demonstrate notability. More are possible if needed for this AfD, but when a comedy club shows up on Google Scholar, that pretty much says it all. Arakunem^Talk 18:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Desolation[edit]

Contested prod. Only 14 ghits for this book, most of them irrelevant. This article simply repeats someone else's non-notable hoax. Clearly fails WP:VER and WP:BK andy (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, WP:CRYSTAL and all that. ("...the book has not yet been published. Amado is working on the final translation...") - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "There is much doubt as to the existence of the book as it has only been seen by Amado himself and just one other person." Fails WP:V, no reliable source. JohnCD (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V don't really apply here. The article is primarily about Amado Crowley's claims regarding this book. These claims can be verified (and, in fact, are referenced). However, I'd question the notability. Therefore I suggest we merge and redirect to Amado Crowley. That Crowley claims to be translating this book is the most interesting thing about it, and there's plenty of room for Crowley's claims regarding the book in the article about him. Pburka (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like complete nonsense.--Sloane (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, no WP:RS to support is (Some forums, and a couple of blogs). Paranormal Skeptic (talk)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shootout at taj hotel for further information. Uncle G (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dhoom 3 (film)[edit]

It is already proposed that this upcoming movie may be a hoax. My prod was contested, unsurprisingly, by the original creator of the article. Per WP:CRYSTAL and the complete lack of anything pointing towards this movie being discussed, it falls clearly flat of WP:N. Finally, as it is, most of the movie is about Dhoom 2. If Dhoom 3 is released, it will be notable for an article come that time. But for now, it isn't, and I propose that it be deleted. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shootout_at_taj_hotel is discussing this movie; I'll vote Delete here as I did at the other AfD. Baileypalblue (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax, fails WP:NFF. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hathyar 10 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Company 2 for two more hoaxes by the same author. JohnCD (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Rumours about this film began in 2006 and petered out in 2007[17]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NFF. Is unsourced and most likely a hoax. Might be speedyable, given the editing history of contributors.Abecedare (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aduri[edit]

This is a speedy delete as per G11 and A7, but anon user has removed the tag more than once (instead of using "hangon"). Started by promo-banned username, which is apparently the same anon user. This has no reliable sources, no claim of notability, its direct-to-dvd via Amazon.com. This is obviously intended to be used as a promotional campaign. A total misuse of Wikipedia. Cerejota (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as just barely, barely meeting WP:NF. I will myself have a hand at removing author's COI, POV and ADVERT to bring it into line with policy and guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain what of the criteria it meets? It doesn't meet the principal WP:N criteria, and in terms of WP:NF I don't see it:

{{notdone}} The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

{{notdone}} The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

{{notdone}} Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.

{{notdone}} The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.

{{notdone}} The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.

{{notdone}} The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

{{notdone}} The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[

{{notdone}} The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.

{{notdone}} The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Secondary criteria for NF:

{{notdone}} The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand".

{{notdone}} The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.

{{notdone}} An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.

This is basically a commercial effort trying to use wikipedia as an advertising platform. However, a convincing argument of meeting any of the above criteria will make me reflect.--Cerejota (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, an anon IP reverted your sensible changes.--Cerejota (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What a colorful way to make sure your every word is emphsized at an AfD discussion. Almost like Making every sentence bold so no one could miss it. This is a nice parlor trick. Like if I were to reply toward your statements...

{{notdone}} checked to see if Amazon is considered worldide distribution or if this guieline as applied to major blockbusters is to be aplied the same way to small independent film which cannot possibly meet their distribution bankrole? OR

{{notdone}} see if the in-depth review or interviews souced in the article met the guidelines of WP:NF or were considered a reliable sources offered by individuals qualified to voice such opinion? OR

{{notdone}} checked to see if a new release independent film had to immediately become historically notable? OR

{{notdone}} stopped to consider that a film only months old could not possibly have an article 5 years after it's release? OR

{{notdone}} considered that a new release could not possibly have a survey by critics five years after its release, since it is not 5 years in the future? OR

{{notdone}} considered that a newly released film could not possibly be screened at a festival five years after its release as it is a NEW film? OR

{{notdone}} Consider that a new film could not and would not be used in any kind of "retrospective on the history of cinema"? OR

{{notdone}} consider that a new film still making the festival circuits has not been out long enough to find all the places that might give it awards? OR

{{notdone}} Consider that a new film is unlikely to be preserved anywhere until it gets older? OR

{{notdone}} Consider that a new film has not been out long enough to be picked up and taught anywhere? OR

{{notdone}} Consider that a new film is not expected to yet meet the guidelines intended for older films? OR

{{notdone}} Consider that the secondary criteria are SECONDARY criteria that indicate special circumstances? OR

{{notdone}} considered that inappropriate arguments out of context is not helpful? OR

{{notdone}} point out that the film did also not meet WP:BOOK or WP:ATHLETE?

Yes... wonderfully colorful. OR SHOULD I USE BOLD FOR EMPAHASIS?. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant widespread notability. JamesBurns (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Davewild. It doesn't appear to be blatant advertisement or spam. While not widespread notability, agree with Schmidt that it may barely meet some of WP:NF such as worldwide DVD release and reviews by local media.
File:Symbol_confirmed.svg Strong keep simply because of nominators obnoxious use of {{notdone}} {{tl|notdone}}. Ikip (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: only one of the references is independently talking about the movie. All the others are press releases, film's website, composer's website, etc.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sufficient citations/notability is included. historically important b/c what is listed in Plot section. lso historically important from a South Asian American film perspective.--solofanindia (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no reasoning provided. User can re-list immediately if s/he includes a reasoning. (non-admin closure)--Cerejota (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neoconservatism in the People's Republic of China[edit]

{{{text}}} The Four Deuces (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree Silver[edit]

Her only claim to notability appears to be that she appeared as a member of the public on a game show. Every single other source is her personal promotional web site. A google search gives 315 hits for the exact phrase "Sheree Silver", checking through the first couple pages shows nothing beyond a little information about her game show appearance, her personal web pages, and then a rapid decline in quality to her facebook account and so on. For the record, my real name - which is much more unusual - gets 3,630 ghits. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable - she has published a book (with Infinity Press, a print-on-demand publisher), has been on a reality show, and has been interviewed on "Good Morning America Now" and some radio shows. 15 minutes of fame, perhaps, but I don't see "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by WP:N. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exists, but not really any sources appropriate for writing an article. No prejudice to recreation if such coverage emerges at a later date. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article already meets notability standards outlined in WP:N and W:N (People) Contention A: This article provides "significant coverage", because I did not mention any original research and addressed criticism in my revised entry. Contention B: The sources are "reliable" because information is taken from the source's website(s), local newspapers, and national outlets such as the Wife Swap website. ~~Contention C: Regarding "Sources," 17 different are cited. Contention D: 15 of 17 sources are "Independent of the subject."~~ Contention C: Regarding "Sources," with latest updates 32 are cited. Contention D: 20 of these 32 (not counting duplicates) are "Independent of the Subject." Contention E: There is no "presumed" of notability, because it is already official that Dr. Silver will appear on national television for a second time, and has fought to do her work in her county. Furthermore, based on my latest revisions, the statements originally made to prompt flagging this article for deletion are primarily now invalid (As mentioned in Contentions A, C, and D). I also find it peculiar that @Shoemaker, who marked this article for deletion, failed to read the article fully. Dr. Silver was definitely NOT a "member of the public on a game show." She was featured on reality television with another family; Wife Swap documents two family lives and interaction - plus, she did it TWICE.Spring12 (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in addition to my earlier contentions, I'd like to point out another one of @Shoemaker's statements: "My name has 3,630ghits." According to WP:N (People), under "Invalid Citera:" Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online. The adult film industry, for example, uses Googlebombing to influence rankings, and for most topics Google cannot easily differentiate between useful references and mere text matches. See also limitations of Alexa. When using Google to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links. Also, Dr. Silver meets general citera by being shown on national television (twice), appearing in print media in the last two decades, and being interviewed on national talk shows.Spring12 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is on a non-notable person. It is however, well written, so the author does deserve some credit for this Macromonkey (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against Deletion. Comment by Shoemaker's Holiday is totally not factual. Dr. Silver did not appear on a "game show" She appeared on Wife Swap, which is a wildly popular "reality" show which has been shown all over the world. ABC stated it was viewed by 6 million people, the first time it aired. It has aired 4 or 5 times since then in the US. So, it can be stated that Dr. Silver's name has been heard by at least 25 million people in the United States. The Silver Family and one other family have been chosen from the first 100 episodes, for a repeat appearance. The second swap has been taped and will air FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 2009. I doubt that any of her critics here can approach her notability. Oh, by the way, in addition to presenting lectures and workshops, she has appeared on local television and radio for years, before going national, teaching on metaphysical topics and hosting call-in programs.

A search of http://staugustine.com/ the web site of the St. Augustine (FL) Record, shows 31 articles mentioning Dr. Silver's name in the last 6 years. She has also been mentioned several times in the Florida Times Union. This is obviously not your average citizen.

Delete Appearing on Wife Swap and being mentioned in the local paper does not satisfy WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aramoana. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independent State of Aramoana[edit]

Article has no sources, despite being tagged since September. I tried finding sources with Google, but all I find are mirrors of this article, and brief trivial mentions. Unless substantial coverage is found, this fails the notability test. Rob (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Aramoana; not finding the reliable source coverage necessary to justify a stand-alone article. Baileypalblue (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- This is already mentioned in a section on Aramoana. I think even that should also be removed, as long as there are no sources. Serious negative claims are made, that if untrue would be libelous. So, without sources there should be no mention of it, anywhere. I find it odd, that there's no sources given, even though it's supposed to be such a controversial story. --Rob (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Aramoana - Somebody has provided sources at Aramoana. I think a combined article is appropriate, since this "micronation" is really simply one of the tacticts used in the dispute over building the smelter, and it doesn't make sense to separate it out, from a relatively small article. --Rob (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per reasons above. --Lholden (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Aramoana, as per reasons above--Unionhawk (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Aramoana aluminium smelter proposal". Dozens of newspaper headlines from a library search[18], a Government Act[19], a documentary[20], 1k Google hits for an event over 25 years ago, the topic is easily notable in it's own right. As above the Independent state is a subtopic/tactic in the campaign against the proposal. XLerate (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, with this demonstration that reliable source coverage exists, I'd say it's better to keep the article under its current title rather than re-writing it to make the smelter the subject of the article, but that's better discussed at the respective talk pages. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valve Sound System[edit]

Was previously deleted. Still not notable, reads like an advertisement. The article will only ever be Fancruft. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable performance ... err ... thing. Featured in BBC's XtraBass awards [21] (there's a set of photos, and a link to an interview with one of the system's creators). Regularly features in reviews/previews of events where it is at the time: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] etc. I've also seen several unreliable sources claiming it's listed in the Guinness Book of World Records (unknown year) as the loudest sound system, but don't have access to copies to confirm this. JulesH (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree you with since it has a lot of notable sources. However, the article itself doesn't list them (I think only one). Just needs a nice editor to clean it up, no need to delete it without good probable cause.Chubr0ck (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think it is important to have an article on this topic. I do think it needs quite a bit of work and referencing, although this is difficult, because by its nature a lot of drum & bass material doesn't get properly published. It would be interesting to see if any popular or famous music magazines have done any articles on the system. I have done a few google searches and can't seem to find anything on it. This sound system regularly tours and is touted as being the best drum & bass sound system around and this appears on all the posters etc. at club nights, so there must be good reason for it, it's just a matter of being able to clarify and cite this information correctly. I honestly feel that a touring sound system that is often said to be the best of its kind deserves a place on Wikipedia. It just needs some work. Dark link (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roza Gough[edit]

Currently an orphaned article about a model who doesn't seem to have the references in WP:reliable sources to reach the notability bar in WP:BIO. Previous version of this article was prodded, which I seconded[29] with Wikipedia is not a resume service. A subsequent editor removed a list of fashion shows in which she had apparently appeared, thus the current two sentence "stub." B.Wind (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not suggested by article contents. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independnent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Career is just a couple seasons of mostly non-notable fashion shows.. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 15:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QubeTV[edit]

vanity page, non-notable, appears to just repost youtube articles, links are far from encyclopedic Aurush kazemini^talk 03:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE -- Agreed, lists of links are not encyclopedic. According to the article itself, it just provides a list of links to YouTube material. The article itself is poorly written and stubby. -- SmashTheState (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The ABC News story and the Washington Times story are both about this subject. So there's substantial independent coverage. I suspect there are probably other stories as well. Not sure why this is being nommed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that doesnt establish notability, papers do articles on things that dont go on wikipedia all the time - it was nominated because it isnt notable jeezus! Aurush kazemini^talk 05:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It satisfies Wikipedia's definition of notability (non-trivial coverage in reliable sources). [30] And I don't think it's a vanity page, since it was created by longtime contributor User:JoshuaZ. Zagalejo^^^ 06:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The quality of the writing in the article is not a reason for deletion, and it passes WP:N. -FaerieInGrey (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage is the very definition of notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Untitled Rina Mimoun Pilot (TV series)[edit]

Article about an unsold television pilot show that asserts that "is currently in development (as of March 2007) by Warner Bros. Television for the ABC network. A pilot episode has been ordered and if a series is ordered it should debut in the 2007-08 season." Needless to say, it was never picked up. B.Wind (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, it's a good thing I made WP:HAMMER applicable to other media. This is certainly a case that calls for it, as the title isn't known, and no other information after '07 can be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable television pilot that was never picked up. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never happened fr33k man -s- 07:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mimoun has long moved on to Privileged (TV series) (of course under Warner TV), so this is a dead pilot. Nate • (chatter) 07:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Rina Mimoun. Seems like this got some news coverage, so it would be appropriate to cover this in Rina Mimoun's article, and might even be worth a mention in Alyssa Milano. DHowell (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a pilot that never left the airport, notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. It's the same vandalism as in Maya Dolas, by yet another account of the same person. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya dolas is back. This is just a vandal copying and pasting Shootout at Lokhandwala with some of the names edited. Uncle G (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shootout at taj hotel[edit]

Dhoom 3 (film),Hathyar 10, Company 2
There are no reliable references on the web or in newspapers. The user who created this article keeps logging out to remove deletion and hoax tags. Unless proper references about these future films are found, all these articles --Dhoom 3 (film), Hathyar 10 and shootout at taj hotel should be deleted as hoaxes. There was a film called Dhoom, there was Dhoom 2 but there has been no news about Dhoom 3. Looks like he/she is making stuff up. Magic.Wiki (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only source is this movie's website, and it's very poorly written. I personally have no problem with it being speedied. →Dyl @n 620 02:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, there is no source at all...the website he added is of some other movie.Magic.Wiki (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no references, likely to be made-up. -- Marek.69 ^talk 06:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. All three articles fail WP:NFF; moreover, at least two are likely hoaxes. Dhoom 3 (film) has copied the plot description of Dhoom 2 from this website with some edits. Shootout at taj hotel's "plot" is copied from 2008 Mumbai attacks. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFF. All the author's four articles seem to be hoaxes. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then encouragethe author to gain a better understanding of what wiki is all about. Though failing WP:NFF in all ways, the article itself shows a growing understanding of format and style... just not of WP:V and WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. No understand for the blocked. Next case. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's only blocked 24 hrs for sockpuppetry, so he has a chance to come back if he can learn the difference between fact and fiction; but well-formatted hoaxes are still hoaxes. JohnCD (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I most dfinitely agree. Now if he would only use his powers for good instead of evil.... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NFF. Is unsourced and most likely a hoax. Abecedare (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:BLP1E. Risker (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Goldstein[edit]

Delete per WP:NPF: "...include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." - most of this information in this article is not relevant to the subject's notability. Also, "Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth." This article does not satisfy these requirements. Goldstein is still known for only one thing. Walker was featured on 60 minutes, etc. There is not even a file photo for Goldstein in any articles about him, all of which are for only ONE thing, which provides for deletion of the article as per WP:BLP1E. The subject of this article is not notable according to the guidelines (thousands of people are charged with aiding and abetting to gain unauthorized access to a server, and they do not have a Wikipedia article). Much of this article is written without verifiable sources. Some of the sources that are included are dubious at best; for example, the article in "The Register" used as a reference relies solely on information provided by other (probably rival) hackers. Additionally, this article was written by an individual with a vested interest in disparaging the subject of the article. For these reasons, this article should be deleted. Cypher55 (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Cypher55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, only got attention for one thing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event, it states this may be the case for a 'particular relatively unimportant crime.' However, Goldstein was investigated by the FBI as apart of a major counter-cyberattack program called Operation: Bot Roast. The amount of news coverage regarding Goldstein at the national and local level show that this was not an unimportant crime. He was charged and convicted in a federal court.Professional Internet User (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Professional Internet User (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  - The majority of articles mentioning Goldstien did so only mentioning that he was one of the eight involved in Operation: Bot Roast; in fact, he caused the least damage of all of those involved and did not profit at all. He just happened to be a part of this press release, one of the least significant individuals. The vast, vast majority of those convicted in a federal court do not have Wikipedia entries; Goldstein should be no different. The only secondary sources referring to Goldstein are for this one specific event. He is not notable enough to have his own article. Cypher55 (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Cypher55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I wrote the original article. Cypher55 accused me of having a vested interest in ruining Goldstein. I'd like to know how he got this information. You may notice if you look up Cypher55's username, he registered right after I made this article in order to change its contents. He even vandalized the sandbox page, User:Professional_Internet_User/Ryan_Goldstein, I was using before I sent the article over to the main Wikipedia site. Sounds like he is the one with 'vested interest.' In regards to sources, if The Register is not a good enough source, I will remove it. But don't tell me this article isn't notable when the United States Department of Justice, International Herald Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer, and Daily Pennsylvanian are not good enough. Want some more sources? Here is one from msnbc.com. Or how about foxnews.com. (these are omitted from the page for redundancy purposes). No sources is a ridiculous statement to make. I also noticed in the changes that he removes references to child pornography, which is found in most of the sources listed on the page. I also would like to note that Goldstein's accomplice Owen Walker has had a page and he is now cross listed in the Operation: Bot Roast page. This information can easily be found through the sources listed on the page. I noticed that Cypher55 has been removing sources on the main page to hide information, so you may need to check the history to see that there are 7 sources. Even more can be added since this has been covered on numerous, independent mainstream news networks.Professional Internet User (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Professional Internet User (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
- Replying to your own AfD? Why not just make another sock puppet account? You said that most of the information is not relevant to the subject's notability. Most of the article text (80%) is dedicated to the arrest and sentence of Goldstein. That is HIGHLY relevant to the notability. The child pornography charges that were dropped can be changed to include the word "allege", but keep in mind this is mentioned in many of the highly notable sources in the article. It is not damaging to a person's private life when this is mentioned in all these national media outlets. You cannot hide the facts from Wikipedia when other independent agencies are reporting it. Walker was on the NZ version of 60 minutes, which is not nearly as notable as other sources Goldstein is found, such as the foxnews and msnbc stories I posted in my response. I'm curious, are you still changing the article to make it look less notable and easier to delete? Professional Internet User (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Professional Internet User (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  - It's not that child pornography charges were dropped, it's that no child pornography charges were ever filed. As such, it was never proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that Goldstein was ever in possession of this content. It is simply an unproven assertion, and claims to this effect are, in effect, libelous. To emphasize, Goldstein was only charged with a single misdemeanor of 'aiding and abetting another person to gain unauthorized access to a protected computer'. As such, the subject of this article only got attention for one thing, which directly contradicts the WP:NPF requirement, as well as WP:ONEEVENT ("If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." The only articles about Goldstein refer to this one event. Clearly not a candidate for a separate biography here). If not a deletion, at least a merge and redirect to the Operation: Bot Roast article would suffice (as suggested in ONEEVENT: "a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options"). There is simply not enough notability according to the guidelines for Goldstein to have his own article. Cypher55 (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Cypher55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - As another point, WP:NPF mentions that "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures." Please note that there is not one word regarding child pornography in any of the government documents (DOJ Press Release or DOJ Indictment (since downgraded to an Information)). Cypher55 (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Cypher55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- "... and he is now cross listed in the Operation: Bot Roast page..." - Professional Internet User added the cross-list himself. He's trying to make the subject seem more notable than he is. Cypher55 (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lrge number of reliable sources indicating notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these sources refer to only one event. Refer to WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." "Cover the event, not the person." Cypher55 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Cypher55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Far too many reliable sources to take this down. This may be a 'one event' type of article, but this one event is quite big. A common criminal robbing a convenient store shouldn't get a Wiki page, but being investigated by the FBI and convicted in a US federal court for cyber crimes is definitely notable. I also noticed he received a harsher punishment than his partner in crime Owen Walker, so its hard justifying keeping Owen's page while concurrently deleting Ryan's.Chubr0ck (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been literally hundreds of cyber crimes convicted in a US federal court. Refer to DOJ list of cyber crimes (note: this list is not comprehensive and only contains 'notable' cases, and Goldstein is not included in this list). The vast majority of these individuals do not have their own article, and they all committed larger charged cyber crimes than Goldstein and all who received punishments had harsher ones than him (i.e. the first entry in the list received 30 months and had to pay a $504,000 fine, while Goldstein received 3 months). Cypher55 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Cypher55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Referring to your other point, Walker was the first individual in New Zealand to be charged with a cyber crime (notable), and he caused over $20,000,000 in economic damages (notable). He was let off because the NZ judge determined a conviction would 'harm his future potential'. As a result of the media coverage, he has received many job offers, including an offer from the New Zealand government to help with computer crimes (notable). The damage that Goldstein caused was an insignificant $5000 to his University, just barely over the line of the amount that is a prerequisite of the crime for which he was initially indicted (not notable). Cypher55 (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Cypher55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- While I have to disagree with the above per WP:WAX I think the article is sourced well, and while it might fall under BLP1E I'd say to Keep Q ^{T C} 02:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is in the media for only one thing. Not notable. 166.196.77.161 (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC) — 166.196.77.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete thousands of people have been charged with the same stuff, barely any of them have a Wiki, shouldn't even need to be debated, delete this. 32.165.170.92 (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC) — 32.165.170.92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It meets WP:GNG. It has been covered in many notable sources, such as fox news, the new york times, and msnbc. --IcyFlamez (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Still goes against the WP:BLP1E policy, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." 166.197.148.212 (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As several other users mentioned, while this article provides reliable sources and is definitely a media issue, the entire article is based solely around one event, which is contradictory to WP:N. Might be suitable for a page on hackers, but not a biography. No qualms with notability, however.Spring12 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:1E. "Cover the event, not the person." - the event is Operation: Bot Roast, it's already covered. 158.130.22.248 (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This deletion review now has four suspicious single-edit IP users claiming delete. The last IP, 158.130.22.248, translates to the University of Pennsylvania where Ryan Goldstein is currently enrolled. This can be verified through this ARIN search. Combined with the fact that User:Cypher55 registered after this article was made in order to get it deleted, I believe this is negatively influencing the outcome of this review. Professional Internet User (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I recently read an article about Operation: Bot Roast and wanted to find more information. I was shocked that Ryan, who was only in the news for one event, had his own article here (as I know that directly violates policy). Because this is a relatively controversial topic, I do not want my other account (which I've had registered here for several years) marred by participation here. In regard to the UPenn IP, there are over 20,000 people at the University of Pennsylvania. I've also noticed that 'Professional Internet User' has made no contributions here for over two years, and has only edited one article, once, in the entire history of his account. Cypher55 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Research Since 'Professional Internet User' wanted to comment on the IP address comments (which are located around the country, in New Jersey, Florida, and Pennsylvania), I decided to do a bit of research myself (can easily be verified through simple Google searches). Cypher55 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Chubr0ck', who voted to keep, is an active, long-time member of myg0t - an article disparaging Ryan is on the front page of their website. Conflict of interest.
  - 'OverlordQ', who voted to keep, is also an active, long-time member of myg0t. Conflict of interest.
  - 'IcyFlamez', who voted to keep, is an active, long-time member of darkscience, an IRC network that Ryan frequented a lot for several years. Conflict of interest.
    - WP:COI I think you should read WP:COI and see how it applies to you before you start making accusations. Most notably the part about "Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy." I'm curious, how do you know that Ryan used to frequent an IRC network named darkscience. I've been googling for awhile and can't find any evidence. Do you know something I don't? Professional Internet User (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd just like to point out that conflict of interest does not just mean someone else's interests conflict with yours Blocky (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusion In my count, there is only one person here who MIGHT not have a conflict of interest who voted to keep, Edward321. Conversely, Ten Pound Hammer with over 90,000 edits voted to delete, and Spring12 with many recent edits from before this article was written, both voted to delete. In the interest of following policy and avoiding conflict of interest, I propose that an administrator minimize the importance of the discussion here, and instead follow the policy established regarding biographies of living people. It's very clear to me that this is an archetypal example of a biography of an individual who is only covered in reliable sources for one event, and thus does not warrant a separate biography per WP:BLP1E. Cypher55 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Cypher in case you didn't notice I'll quote the second half of the NPF guidelines you quote above: "Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth." It would seem that it's fair to keep as long as the word allege is there, as far as the child pornography charges go. The computer crime, obviously, is more than an allegation. As a matter of opinion, I think the very allegation of a child pornography charge being dropped to a minor computer crime in exchange for cooperation with federal authorities qualifies as noteworthy and deserves a public discussion and record thereof. Also I don't think the presence or absence of a photo on any article really enters into this discussion., and I'd like to point out that it's a bit premature to tag your own comment as a conclusion when this discussion is clearly not settled. Blocky (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree Another subject to this case shows the appearance of racial inequality in the court system. Ryan Goldstein was convicted with botnetting, but was able to avoid child porn charges. An African American man was given more time (2 years) for just the child porn. They were sentenced together so that the judge could make a point. This is a separate event to Operation: Bot Roast and definitely notable. Professional Internet User (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagree Please note that Blocky has not made any contributions in nearly 3 years, and he is also an active, long-time myg0t member, a harassment group with an article disparaging Ryan on their front page. Another conflict of interest. This is essentially recruiting people from a community to try to keep an article here that clearly should not be based on the WP:1E policy. There is still only ONE person without a very clear conflict of interest who has voted to keep this article. Cypher55 (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Cypher55, In the vein of assuming good faith I'd prefer not to start an argument. I would like to direct you, however, to my previous comment regarding the meaning of the phrase 'conflict of interest.' My affiliation with myg0t, if anything, gives me a more informed viewpoint on the issue than many Wikipedians who are new to this particular issue. At any rate, we seem to have digressed substantially from the topic at hand, namely which, if any, specific Wikipedia rules have been violated by this article. Please try to stay on topic. 96.50.69.12 (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sum (book). WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibilianism[edit]

David Eagleman seems to be reasonably notable. I am dubious about the notability of his latest book: Sum. But I definitely think that this word he has coined is not even notable enough for a redirect. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Internet search reveals barely any mentions of the word. Fails notability on range of quality sources available. MarquisCostello (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect Google search as of 09:56 UTC today shows the article itself as the only online reference to the term, so not notable. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed mind in light of comments below Gonzonoir (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NEOLOGISM. Not a useful search term. Baileypalblue (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the book Sum (book). I think this actually could be a search term, but shouldn't have an article per WP:NEO. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Linguist. The term seems to be a focal point of the book, a redirect seems helpful and practical. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose that -- the term may become a useful search phrase once the book is more widely known. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per above comments. If at some future point, there is sufficient reason for a separate article, then that can easily be done. Bondegezou (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Krapf[edit]

Unnotable alien conspiracy theorist. No sources in the text, but lots of wild claims for over three years. http://news.google.com/archivesearch had nothing of value. BBiiis08 (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage in reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Child of Midnight. Bearian (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is conspiracy crap bordering on nonsense. Letsdrinktea (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. --Sloane (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not covered by reliable sources. Tractops (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cavity Within (radio show)[edit]

AfDed once before (don't know how to make it link to one with a different name) where there was no consensus due in part to bundling. Despite the no consensus close, no evidence was proven that this was notable -- just that it could be, partially because it was on the BBC. Since notability is not inherited, I'm bringing it back here now that some time has passed. StarM 02:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned, poorly referenced, no assertions of why this is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtphokie (talk • contribs)
Delete: non-notable radio programme. JamesBurns (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technochrist[edit]

Google search and GNews search generate no significant coverage of this DJ whatsoever (and what coverage there is appears not to be wholly independent). Article seems to be an autobiography. Bongo matic 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficent notability. But I hope he has terrific success and becomes famous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extend debate per Talk:Technochrist for a couple of days. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Last edit to article other than tagging was 21 January. Request for non-deletion was 10 February. AfD put up on 16 February. Seems like ample opportunity to improve / provide references, especially as the author is the subject, so would presumably be aware of any coverage received. Bongo matic 02:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of current musical notability, but subject to re-creation later on. No improvement, nor evidence, proferred in past several days. Bearian (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List_of_Home_Improvement_characters#Mark_Taylor. MBisanz ^talk 05:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Taylor (Home Improvement)[edit]

Delete Non-notable. TV trivia.George Pelltier (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge important character in a long running prime time sitcom. RMHED. 15:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to List of Home Improvement characters, but not because for lack of notability, but lack of reason for a spinout at this time. The LoC already covers the character in nearly the same depth. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)*Merge per Sguereka. FingersOnRoids 02:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because he is already covered in the List of Home Improvement characters page. I am against a merge/redirect becuase there really isn't anything to merge that isn't already covered, and with the (Home Improvement) dab, I don't think this is a plausible search term. Tavix (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to List of Home Improvement characters, because if there is unique information, merge it to the list, but if not, then simply redirect to the list. A proper disambiguation page can lead people to the right article.--Unionhawk (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and then consider whether to Merge into a suitable combination article -- it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Home_Improvement_characters#Mark_Taylor. No need to merge; blurb at List of... covers character sufficiently. --EEMIV (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to List of Home Improvement characters. JamesBurns (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot details for a non-notable fictional character which has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Trivial tvcruft. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List_of_Home_Improvement_characters#Mark_Taylor.--Sloane (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List_of_Home_Improvement_characters#Mark_Taylor - as pointed out, important character in major TV show, but article is redundant. Radiopathy (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Home Improvement characters. MBisanz ^talk 05:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Taylor[edit]

Delete I think it's non-notable and trivial.George Pelltier (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge important character in a long running prime time sitcom. RMHED. 15:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to List of Home Improvement characters, but not because for lack of notability, but lack of reason for a spinout at this time. Nearly everything in the article is just plot summary, original research and trivia. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge as per RMHED. Edward321 (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge per reasons already cited. Even though there's no inherited notability, the standard for this is to do redirects to parent articles. --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to List of Home Improvement characters. JamesBurns (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD A7 - no claims of notability or any other evidence of notability. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Frontier VA[edit]

Hard to see any notability here Michael Johnson (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliable source coverage, fails WP:CORP. Baileypalblue (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 06:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable cyber-airline, fails WP:WEB. WWGB (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar Relocation[edit]

Probably fails WP:CORP, spam (WP:PROMOTION) Guy0307 (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Corporate advert. No claims to notability whatsoever. §FreeRangeFrog 02:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really want to say keep as this company may be notable, but this entire article reads like an advertisement. Very little information about the history of the company; more links than real content.Chubr0ck (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP and I was unable to find a hit on Google that was not promotional. -FaerieInGrey (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Qomcorp (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure I understand enough yet to meet the requirements, but I will try to rewrite the entry so it complys with Wikipedia mandates. This entry was not intended to be an advertisement, or spam. I apologise for the limitation of my abilities and I will attept to correct the entry over the next few days. Thanks for your patience.[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Nicholls[edit]

Delete. The article is severely under referenced. It has not been edited in almost half a year, and nobody seems to have the urge to change this. The original deletion tag was removed because the user thought that Stan Nicholls seemed notable. I think this is debatable. He has wrote one trilogy, which was a moderate commercial success. The series, however, was not that well received by critics. In a literary sense, I think he is of low importance, and really of no importance. I don't think his books are successful enough, or influential enough to merit having a half-baked attempted article written about him. I think it should be deleted because it is awfully sourced, badly written, of no importance, and seems to have very little interest to users. Alan16 (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep adequately notable author. JJL (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author has published dozens of books, distributed in over 20 countries, including titles that have sold millions of copies, and has been nominated for multiple awards, demonstrating the respect of his peers. As such, he easily satisfies the notability requirements of WP:CREATIVE. None of the other issues cited in the nomination are valid reasons for deletion: AfD is not cleanup, and there is no time limit for improving Wikipedia articles. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "has published dozens of books". He has not published dozens of books. He has only this year published his twelth. You could say you he has published over a dozen if you counted two things. 1) The Orcs trilogy being republished in one book. (Twice). 2) If you counted the American and UK releases of the Quicksilver Trilogy. They have been published on both sides of the Atlantic under different titles.
- Also, you're claim that he has "the respect of his peers" is doubtful. He has one the BFA, which is not decided by fellow authors. And I find it hard to "dis" the other awards he has got, because it is hard to find out any info on them. Now this is obviously because they are so hugely influential...
- And yes, AfD is not a cleanup, and there is not time limit for improving Wikipedia. But surely there has to be some showing of life in an article for you to keep such a useless one. Alan16 (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Added a reference - if the source is questionable, the same info appears in other references, also. There are enough ghits that more can prolly be gleaned. Seems notable enough.Vulture19 (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winner of an award given by a notable festival. JulesH (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't. If you looked at the page, instead of just searching in Google for it, then you might realise how un-notable it is. Alan16 (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The method to judge notability is via independent sources. There are plenty of them in the search I gave you, hence the festival is notable, unless you can specify some reason otherwise. JulesH (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:CREATIVE as a winner of a notable award, and a nominee for multiple notable awards. — neuro^(talk) 15:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- In response to everyone: if he is such a "notable" author, who has sold all these books you claim he has sold, surely there would be at least one fan on Wikipedia who would improve his page? The page was created 2 and a half years ago.
- And I have just done a quick search on amazon, and his best selling book there is around 69000th on the list. I compared that to Gardens of the Moon, the first novel in Steven Erikson's series. (A series which by 2006 had sold approx 250,000 novels), and it ranked 11000th. So you are all trying to tell me that he is so successful, yet he is fifty thousand places lower on the list of best sellers on amazon (one of the biggest sellers of novels these days) than a book by an author who has sold approximately a quarter of a thousand novels?Alan16 (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Amazon sales rank of a book that is not currently a bestseller is basically meaningless. The book you have chosen for a comparison had a reprint released less than 2 weeks ago, an action that often results in a temporary increase in sales. This is basically meaningless. JulesH (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being badly written means that someone should improve it, not delete it. Defaulting keep because I can't find any policies that he fails. Tavix (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sure, he may not be terribly notable, but he's easily notable enough -- the awards nominations are good, and having his novels published in several countries is another fairly decent indication. (The "wouldn't there be at least one fan on Wikipedia?" argument certainly doesn't hold water, if only because it's not among the notability criteria. Ditto for Amazon sales.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The amazon sales was there because somebody claimed that he had sold millions, and I was trying to prove that that was an inaccurate statement. Alan16 (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CREATIVE#Creative_professionals:

- - "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. (1)
  - The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. (2)
  - The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (3)
  - The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. (4)"

(1) Is not met. His books are not regarded as having any importance in his genre, never mind in the larger literary field.
(2) Certainly not met. Reviews cite his books as derivative, and clichéd. [31][32]
(3) "well-known work" - Not really. I don't think his name is well known, nor his books particularly well known. Just because there are a lot of them, doesn't mean they are well known. "multiple independent... reviews". Almost any book in print is reviewed these days. So does that mean anybody who gets a book reviewed should be included?
(4)(a) No. (b) No. (c) Sketchy. He has been the subject of some reviews (generally negative or neutral, very few particularly positive), and won some minor awards. (d) No.
I think at best he almost half-meets some of these. I didn't think that was enough to keep such an article, but there you go. I think my responses to the above points are enough reason to delete the article. Sorry about how badly I set that last bit out.Alan16 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability has little to do with quality. The reviews may be lukewarm or bad, sure, but they exist. Also, you don't necessarily have to be well-known; it's enough that you're not an unknown. I'm not saying the man is a superstar, but he doesn't have to be. The notability requirement not there to make sure that only the famous get in so much as it is to raise the bar to a point where every self-published "barely a blip on the radar for two months" guy can be excluded without a huge argument. If you write a couple of books that get reviewed, get some awards nominations and get published in several countries, you're probably good. It's enough. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmix[edit]

Non-notable software. No unique features. Unsourced. Makes no claim to notability and does not provide sources showing notability. Run of the mill open source players are not inherently notable. Notable subjects have active editors and wikilinks. This article has no major edits in more than a year, and few wikilinks except for templates. Miami33139 (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Software without reliable sources and proof of notability = delete. Spiesr (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moderately well known software (part of odd deletion pattern of editor nominating very many Free Software products for deletion). LotLE×talk 22:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because You like it? It does not meet our notability criteria. I am proposing deletion of run-of-the-mill media players that do not establish notability. Free, unfree, open-source or paid does not matter. There is nothing inherently notable about media playing software. Wrapping some UI code around an audio API on any modern platform is trivial. Miami33139 (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is really "moderately well known" then it should be able to show that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Spiesr (talk) 20:04, 18 February 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) 00:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage of reliable third party media, non-notable. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 00:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Non-notable. Guy0307 (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Sanders[edit]

Bio asserts notability with Indie Band with limited (trivial) coverage. References point to 1)Closed Online Service and 2)Local online Milwaukee coverage. CMT reference unverifiable and not sure if it is a National charting service. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 08:55, 17 February 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) 00:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disco water[edit]

Unreferenced article about unremarkable cocktail. Disputed prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about boldly merging and/or redirecting? Surely there's a drink list? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but we need more than a verified price to actually have an article or even a list entry on the subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've removed an attempt at impersonation in the AFD. Please see this diff. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this is a notable drink. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 19 February 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, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article makes no claims of importance, let alone notability -- "one of the cheapest drinks that you can possibly buy" wouldn't cut the mustard even if it were true. Lacks the reliable source coverage necessary to satisfy the general notability guideline. If this were a person, company or web content it would be a speedy deletion candidate. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. JohnCD (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kevin Sullivan (producer). MBisanz ^talk 23:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love on the land[edit]

Unremarkable miniseries (see WP:NOTABILITY). This seems to be part of a recent influx of single purpose accounts relating to Kevin Sullivan. There have been several previous incidents of COI, copyvio, and even a couple of legal threats involving Sullivan-related editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Kevin Sullivan (producer) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:39, 17 February 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, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At time I am closing this the talk page is a red link. Just an observation. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss migration to the United Kingdom[edit]

No indication that Swiss migration to the UK is a notable phenomenon. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not a great article at the moment, but it appears to have some potential, and there are a number of similar articles German migration to the United Kingdom, Czech migration to the United Kingdom, etc. Admittedly, one of these are great articles, but I see potential; however, depending on the direction this article takes it might just become a list of British people of Swiss descent, which while not bad per se, would require a change of name at the least. Cool3 (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, we should be judging the article on its own merits and the existence of similar articles doesn't come into it. The key question is, do you think Swiss migration to the UK is notable enough for its own article? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 16 February 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, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Migration means the movement of a large number of people in a definate time period. There is no evidence of a Swiss migration to the United Kingdom, as there is for an Irish migration to the United States for instance. Probably as many people moved the other way. Borock (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Borock. There is no evidence that there is a notable migration. Tavix (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cool3. There's a precedent for [insert nationality here] migration to the United Kingdom articles. If it can't grow though Merge into an article regarding Anglo-Swiss relations. Spinach Monster (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Judge an article on its own merits, not because there are others out there like it. Tavix (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article makes no claim to notability. If you feel that it notable, you should state why and consider editing the article to reflect its notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "migration" in the title isn't neeeded. Make it "Swiss in the United Kingdom" paralleling Ecuadorians in the United Kingdom. If notability isn't established, make it a section redirect to Swiss diaspora. If the Swiss diaspora isn't notable to UK demographics, the UK Swiss are notable to the Swiss diaspora, being the fourth largest group. Deletion isn't an option. Please people, avoid deletion debates on titles that obviously should be discussed somewhere on Wikipedia even if not necessarily in a standalone article: just turn them into section redirects and be done, no need to impose on the AfD backlog. --dab (𒁳) 17:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as subsection of Swiss diaspora, it might not be notable of its own but it is notable within the phenomena of Swiss abroad. Migration might also be the false term here, so diaspora is better. --hroest 18:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So that's merge, not keep then? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' I think the section titled "Notable Britons with Swiss ancestry" is something people might wish to read. And there is no reason to delete this. There isn't a shortage of server space, and you'd not notice it if you didn't go looking for the information, so it doesn't really affect those who wouldn't want to see it. Dream Focus 02:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"No shortage of server space" is not a reason to keep an article. Try again. Tavix (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no claim that this migration is notable. It's just a list of several people who moved from one country to another. No evidence of a massive influx of people that might have received substantial coverage or created significant cultural impact. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and sourced. EagleFan (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:PMDrive1061. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redmond Ball[edit]

A non-notable spin on U.S. football. Does not meet WP:V standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I already deleted it once before and I should have salted the doggoned thing. I'm invoking WP:BOLD, WP:MADEUP and WP:SNOW and I'm going to delete it and salt it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ScotsGay. MBisanz ^talk 05:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Hein[edit]

Declined A7 speedy. Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 05:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 05:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ScotsGay? I can't find any third-party sources written about this guy, but he does seem often-quoted with the implication that he is somehow influential or authoritative, in association with that publication: here are some sources to back that up: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. If anyone can find any sources specifically written about this guy, I would say to keep the article. Cazort (talk) 00:35, 17 February 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) 00:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ScotsGay. He is a relatively known figure in Scots' LGBT community, appears in media occasionally. Don't think thats enough for WP:BIO though. Agree with Cazort above. Parslad (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Central Europe. MBisanz ^talk 05:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danubian Europe[edit]

A classic piece of original research. Note the user-made map, the coatrack-like stringing together of disparate concepts (Danubian Principalities, Danubian Latin, Danubian school) meant to give the impression they all fall under a single broader umbrella, the bibliography that is at best tenuously connected to the concept. Granted, the term is used, and we should mention it in the appropriate places (Danube, Central Europe), but the sources make clear it's a synonym for Central Europe and Mitteleuropa. Already those two articles are proposed for merger; a third one covering the same ground just isn't needed. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Danubian europe exist and is common to refer to this part of Europe as Danubian europe.For me there difference between Mittleeuropa and Danibuan Europe, Trieste is a city of Mittleeuropa but don't belonge to the Danubian europe. The article can be divided in other article ( ex an article about danubian soccer school ). User:Lucifero4
- Do you have sources indicating that the term differs from Mitteleuropa? Your own opinion on where Trieste fits is immaterial here; we need reliable sources indicating the two concepts are different enough that two articles would not be mere content forks of each other. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a link to a page whwre Triste is part of Mitteleuropa. Switzerland a part of Mitteleuropa is not part of Danubian Europe. [38]User:Lucifero4
    - NationMaster is a mirror of Wikipedia: see here. Since WIkipedia is not a valid source for other Wikipedia articles, that's not good enough. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOT. Dahn (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Mitteleuropa~~ Central Europe (agree with Deor below), where a brief, referenced section discussing this particular term should be created. This article is incoherent, and it's clear that the multiple senses of use the article discusses don't hang together in any convincing way. But the term appears to have some academic currency, and there's a place for it somewhere in Wikipedia: just not as a full article in its own right. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Redirect Article has sources, but it really feels empty. Not a whole lot of content. Mitteleuropa with a new subsection should work fine.Chubr0ck (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice article.--Wovit! Wovit! (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Wovit! Wovit! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge and redirect per Gonzonoir, though I would suggest Central Europe as the better target. Deor (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about Central Europe, and have changed my suggestion above. Gonzonoir (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Does not appear to be notable or non-original enough for its own article, but redirecting it to Central Europe may be helpful to the reader. Letsdrinktea (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FreeLinc[edit]

No independent, 3rd party refs attesting to notability, no evidence that this company has encyclopedic notability, or that it meets WP:CORP. Appears to have been created by someone connected to that company. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:54, 17 February 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) 00:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company has won a few minor awards, but lack of independent reliable source coverage means it fails WP:CORP. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, appears to be an advertisement page. Letsdrinktea (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Weak Delete-The sources still don't seem to be independent and notablility is in question. Letsdrinktea (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added this reference from Urgent Communications, a reliable source. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That source is a rehashed press release from a non-RS. Bongo matic 01:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent Communications Magazine might be a reliable source, but this article never appeared in print, and never went through the associated editorial process, which is a key to establishing reliability. Unfortunately, as User:Bongomatic says, it looks like one of the many reprinted company PR releases available on the internet. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable company that has yet to receive significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Bongo matic 01:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Pink (r)[edit]

Based on the following web searches:

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

the subject appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and therefore doesn't comply with the general notability guideline . PhilKnight (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant - so ~~weak keep~~. Coverage isn't extensive but [39] and [40] are both WP:RS even if the specific articles may have credibility issues (the former is about a company, not a product and the latter reads like a reworded press release). In any case, if kept, this should be moved to Lady Pink (energy drink) and a disambig notice should be added to Lady Pink (or a disambig page could be set up). Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Usrnme h8er, the links you posted are press releases, if you scroll to the very end of the page it either says 'press releases' or gives a link for 'more press releases'. PhilKnight (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, the sheer amount of press release material out there actually fooled me. changing my !vote to weak delete - there is some stuff, but it's mostly references in stock speculation discussions - nothing that seems to meet RS criteria. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside content was added to include the percentage of caffeine compared to other energy drinks. Less like a promotional page with retailers removed. As additional outside sources become available additional information can be entered. I think the page should be kept.Gumby945 (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even following your extensive editting of the page the page still lacks verifiable reliable sources which means that wikipedia "should not have an article on it" _{(quote, reliable source policy, linked above)}. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 14:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I am not doing this correctly as it is my first time creating an article. I would like to ask if the problem is concerning Lady Pink drink or the company itself. I have contacted the Director of the company to obtain some further information and he indicated that he will be getting back to me. If the problem relates to the product, it is listed on [41] As well research was done by [42] The Company was involved in a motorcycle race which is profiled in [43] Bionic Tonic is also manufactured by Bionic Products. The company has an active listing on Nevada Secretary of State [44] I hope this is satisfactory as most of the information online is investment related. I plan to change Lady Pink (r) to Lady Pink Energy Drink but I discovered that I would need to wait 4 days before changing the name and adding a picture of the product. I appreciate your patience in guiding me through the process. Sincerely, Aanubisu (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any evidence of wp:notability. None. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was the article that was the subject of this AfD has been speedily deleted (G3) by JzG. The redirect left at The Malpaso Company has been retargeted. All is well. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Malpaso Company[edit]

Non-notable company under WP:CORP. No reliable independent sources presented (all sources presented are not about the subject of the article and only one even mentions it). Declined speedy. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 08:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Smells like a WP:HOAX. You'd think this would return more than 30 hits? §FreeRangeFrog 00:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 I'm calling hoax too, something this big would turn up more hits for sure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Malpaso Productions, (aka Malpaso Company) is important in film history as Clint Eastwood's production company, with an interesting story to go with it. It is odd that like Enron, this is a Texas oil futures trading company that gets cachet from the movie business. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless I'm missing something, this page has been moved and speedied as of Feb 21. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Malpaso Company is currently a redirect to a deleted page, but Malpaso Productions (which seems legit) claims The Malpaso Company as a former name -- does anyone object to redirecting The Malpaso Company to Malpaso Productions? Baileypalblue (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Beagel (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did it (and cleaned up the Malpaso Productions article a bit while I was at it). Deor (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW yandman 13:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ndaba kaMageba[edit]

~~no sources; nothing on google books; non-notable. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)~~ Keep This article has been heavily revised, and now it looks like there are plenty of good sources for a Zulu king named Ndaba. So the article should definitely be kept. There aren't any reliable sources about "kaMageba", so probably the article should be moved to Ndaba, but that's for another discussion. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 12:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for ndaba+great-grandfather, you'll find a number of books and articles that mention a Zulu king or chief Ndaba who was the great grandfather of Shaka. Maybe some of these sources can be used to write a real article. --Hegvald (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what about "kaMageba"? Was he the king? Or was it some other Ndaba? —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 10:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea. It just struck me that searching for part of the name may get better results, which it did. The genealogy appears to match, and the person appears to be "notable" by any reasonable definition, even if the biographical details known for certain may be few and vague. But to write something that is useful to anyone looking for the topic, one would probably need to do a more thorough bibliographical search and look for printed sources not available on the web. (Would it matter if the article in its current state were to be deleted? Of course not, not unless it creates some kind of precedent against a new article. It may even improve the chances of getting a better article, as it would offer someone the pleasure of starting from scratch rather than from some silly little pseudo-article that someone else abandoned a long time ago.) --Hegvald (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an additional comment to point out that the "current state" of the article has changed, as User:Ikip has started working on an article on Ndaba. At this point, it would clearly no longer be appropriate to delete the page. --Hegvald (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources found by Hegvald. King of the Zulus is a notable position. Edward321 (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is there to keep? Nothing is verifiable and there's really nothing there to keep is there? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless it can be expanded. Queenie ^Talk 19:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Expand Then expand it. If I nominated every stub I saw for deletion, Wikipedia would have thousands less articles, and those articles would have to be start from scratch again.--Unionhawk (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of value will be lost. Letsdrinktea (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A ruler of the Zulus should automatically be notable. Improve, don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep and expand. In the A Zulu-English Dictionary By Alfred T. Bryant which is 1905 downloadable book from google, pg 38 says that Ndaba succeeded Punga, and from "Ndaba downwards the geneology is certain". I have since added 8 more scholarly references. Ikip (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin the article has been expanded extensively since the AfD, with sources which prove Ndaba was a Zulu king. Ikip (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this AfD has been listed on: Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa, Zulu, List of Zulu kings Ikip (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: once it was established this was a ruler on the Zulu kingslist, this AFD should have been closed. Deletion is to remove topics which should never have a Wikipedia article devoted to them. Editing and research is for improving them. I'm continually shocked that people don't recognise the difference. T L Miles (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and build. EagleFan (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a blatant copyright infringement (CSD G12). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RECESSION[edit]

not encyclopedic, theres already an article on it Letsdrinktea (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be some kind of rant or essay. Jtrainor (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio of this, tagged as such. ascidian | talk-to-me 22:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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