Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 25 May 27 May >

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 redirect to Apocalypse (film series)#Apocalypse V: Redemption. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse V: Redemption[edit]

Apocalypse V: Redemption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article explicitly fails WP:NFF as the film is in pre-production. No prejudice against recreation when reliable sources confirm that filming has commenced. Contested prod. PC78 (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The movie already has a complete screenplay, and the film is now in production. That should be detailed enough. No article is perfect, and you can't expect us to make it perfect, nor should you delete it just for not giving enough information. Why delete something that we try our best of doing just for not making it long enough? Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because, since the movie is in pre-production, and not particularly notably so, we cannot be sure that filming will ever begin (changes of plans do happen). The fact of the matter is, it was a bit too soon to create this article. If it gets deleted, however, it can be "userfied," in which case none of your work will be lost and all of it will be available for recreation once filming does begin. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. Currently merits only a mention at Apocalypse_(film_series), which is already there. Hairhorn (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter chapman[edit]

Peter chapman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person appears to be completely not notable in wikipedia terms. The only thing he has done is created a website featuring his research into his ancestors. The only google hits he has are for details of his ancestors on one of the genealogy sites that allow the creation of a family tree. Even the website he created doesn't turn up. The only reference is to this website, and the article appears to have been created by a relative. I fail to see how this article can be made encyclopaedic. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - So far there is nothing in the article that would make the person notable under WP:N and WP:Bio. An internet search i just performed leaves me also with no evidence for notability under Wikipedia terms. Iqinn (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Glass[edit]

Cold Glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

seven minute film being made by amateurs for fun, has not even been been shot yet. Beach drifter (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commet Is there no appropriate speedy for this increasingly common situation? Beach drifter (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) - Nominator appears to have withdrawn the request & all other !votes are keep. ThaddeusB (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Cambridge Paragraph Bible[edit]

New Cambridge Paragraph Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't quite see why this translation is notable, and it seems to have an awful lot of OR. Thoughts? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google news search shows sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to render it notable as the first new scholarly revision of the King James Version in quite some time. Drawn Some (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am in agreement with Drawn Some. The article needs a rewrite only. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite - Vartanza (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability is established with coverage in reliable sources. [1], and [2] are just two examples from many search results returned by Google News. Any original research can be dealt with through editting. -- Whpq (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Whpq. Bearian (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, you do make a pretty good case for keeping it. It just surprised me, as, well, it's one edition (but evidently an important one) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability is established. It may well be that some of these articles on specific Bible translations eventually will have to be merged if there is insufficient content to keep them separate, but that is a discussion for elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfy. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apollyon (film)[edit]

Apollyon (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability; a google search finds just two hits outside Wikipedia. Prod removed but this concern was not addressed. PC78 (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy WP:CRYSTAL. No doubt will be notable when released so allow the author to hold onto it until then. Drawn Some (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Utterly bizarre entry; not since I marked student papers have I seen an utter lack of information stretched out to maximum length. Hairhorn (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go patrol new pages for a while. It'll blow your mind. Shadowjams (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or Weak keep - It's got a Finnish language wiki page: Apollyon (elokuva); most of the sources I found were Finnish as well. I think it's actually a viable improvement candidate, although I might want to see some sources. Userfy is fine too, and it can be reintroduced when the release related media provides WP:RS. Shadowjams (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per this and request input from Finnish wikipedians who would be better able to search and translate sources. It can always be returned to AfD if such is not forthcoming. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as most of this article information has been written from reference #3 "Satakunnan Kansa, Virta - magazine, issue #20, 15.5.2009". This is apparently a weekly magazine and it was in net for a while but has since been refreshed with a new weekly issue. - FinFilmBiz —Preceding unsigned comment added by FinFilmBiz (talk • contribs) 23:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. An article in the local press is not enough to keep. Btw, FinFilmBiz is a single-purpose account. Fences and windows (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Anthony Ince[edit]

Cecil Anthony Ince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Jack of all trades, master of none. Looks like an autobiography. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet the WP:N guideline.Intelligentsium (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok all, This all is refferenced. Whats the violation? Those links have been deleted. --Cecil Anthony Ince 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs)

Delete Fails notability requirements and is obviously autobiographical. Beach drifter (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not Notability? Is not the Kansas City Star a Reliable source? Is not the Missouri secretary of State a Reliable source?--Cecil Anthony Ince 23:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs)

I suggest you read the notability guidelines, WP:BIO WP:ENT WP:POLITICIAN Beach drifter (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the notablity guidelines, and i have had much press in the state of missouri. I provide those links and i cite those Sources. I have been appointed to many different political party positions. I have proformed on stage publicly with advertizing in missouri and texas. Yes i think i meet the guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs) 23:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the guidelines well, you would understand that you need significant coverage from reliable sources. You don't have anything close to that, and you're not doing yourself any favors adding yourself to a ton of lists and creating a dozen redirects to the article. Beach drifter (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It have has significant coverage and all are reliable. The Kansas City Star, The St. louis Post Dispatch, local radio, local news papers all over missouri. I have even been on Fox News. That is significant and reliable. Do I need to audition for comedy central or co-star with Robin Williams??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs) 00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A one or two line blurb with your name it is not at all significant. A press release you sent in to the paper is not significant. Luckily the guideline breaks it down for us: Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
Let me say that i had full pages write ups in many papers. a full leaghth Television interview. A large underground following that spans over two states. I have preformed on stage over 150 times.

I can't beleive you beleive Its not notible, or that they are reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Request remedy to this AFD --Cecil Anthony Ince 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs) [reply]

KEEP The artical meets guidlines, and has been edited to do so.--Cecil Anthony Ince 00:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete, references lack sufficient detail to establish notability. CliffC (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an obvious non-neutral autobiography. If he is as notable as he claims then someone else will write up an article about him guaranteed. Otherwise this is blatant "look-at-me!!" promotion and violates WP:COI. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 07:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Second suggestion, keep but block user from editing his own article. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 07:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: is that even technically possible? – ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet the WP:BIO requirements, no significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a musician, comedian or politician with any significant coverage. Let's wait until there's some proper coverage of notable achievements. Fences and windows (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom after excellent sources found DGG (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Rundle (British naval officer)[edit]

Dear Administrator: I am withdrawing this AFD; I concede notability based on the yeoman work of User:Jezhotwells, who has also kindly fixed the article. Please remove the AFD template at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Rundle (British naval officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy delete: No proof of subject's existence despite exhaustive Internet search; completely unsourced (except for bogus "Who's Who") by editor who created the article as "New entry from personal knowledge"; article's creator inactive since Nov. 2008 Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: non-notable, not non-existent, individual, in light of info provided by User:Paste (see below). There are other legitimate Mary Rundles on the Internet, including one associated with the Royal College of Nursing, which is how I came across this article. I want to emphasize that I scoured newspaper archives, peerage websites, London Gazette (which includes all kinds of honours bestowed on British citizens), even genealogy sites(www.ancestry.com, which has entries for other countries besides the US) to no avail. If this woman turned 100 two years ago as the author claims she would have received a telegram from the Queen, again, no mention. The bogus Who's Who citation (which includes no year, volume number, pages, etc.), as well as the "New entry from personal knowledge" edit summary are pretty much give-aways. It's not typical vandalism, I agree, but there is no empirical evidence of the subject's existence non-notability and as such can't/shouldn't be included in any valid encyclopaedia. The only other site that mentions this person is a mirror website (DuckDuckGo), which just copies Wikipedia info. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) AFD withdrawn. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first link provided by User:Paste is invalid and the second contains no record when I searched for "Mary Rundle" by name. I know that Mark Rundle, her alleged father, existed because I am the one who inserted his years of birth/death (check the edit history). However the only other info on Mark Rundle are his military positions/awards (e.g. Rear Admiral, Engineer Commander, DSO); no personal info re wife or family. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It would seem that if she has a CBE she would be traceable but it doesn't seem to be possible on the internet. Maybe there is a book somewhere that lists all the recipients. Drawn Some (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drawn Some, if the article's creator had used Who's Who as a source, which I will wager he didn't, given his edit summary about "personal knowledge", then all the info that is missing would not be missing. The person who created the article did so as a vanity page for someone he or his family knew, and exaggerated the importance. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm I'm thinking that once you hit 100 years then NOT being in the newspaper is probably the best thing. Drawn Some (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why, what's wrong with being a centenarian? Anyway, she is non-notable. The first link provided by User:Paste did work after all and does confirm that one "Rundle, Mary Beatrice (Miss)" was an Women's Royal Naval Service (WRNS) Officer, but contains no information at all regarding her activities, positions, etc. or anything that would make her notable. There is no proof she was awarded the CBE. The second link website comes up with nothing when you search for the name Mary Rundle. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that means she's not notable, just that UK newspapers haven't necessarily made their archives from the 1930s and 1940s available online. We are allowed to use real references, not just Google. The author added a lot of material to various articles and there is no reason to suspect it to be a hoax, just OR. But that doesn't mean sources aren't available at a library. Drawn Some (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drawn Some, again, if the article's creator had used Who's Who as a source, which he claimed, but obviously didn't and given his edit summary about "personal knowledge" it's pretty apparent that this is a page created someone he or his family knew, and exaggerated her importance. If she had been awarded the CBE, I would have found it when I was going over the London and Edinburgh Gazettes. An article created solely from WP:OR, little of which can be confirmed is not an article that should remain on Wikipedia. And as far as the creator's other edits I certainly think they should be reviewed; I'll do so when I get the chance, for POV, OR, etc. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that if she did get a CBE she is notable and should be included in the encyclopedia. A Google search is not reliable for events that happened 50 years ago, 40 years ago, whenever, Just saying we ought to confirme that one point before pulling the delete trigger. Anything less would be irresponsible. Drawn Some (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, possessing the award of the CBE would not confer notability by Wikipedia's guidelines and not automatically cement the person an article in the encyclopaedia. However, searching the London Gazette's archives here should be able to give a reference for the award of the decoration on Rundle. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being related to notable people does not make you notable. And there's no evidence this person is related to anyone notable - the only info I can find on the alledged father marrying [5] has him doing so 40 years after Mary Rundle is supposed to have been born. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The Times Digital Archive shows that Mary Rundle, WRNS was awarded a CBE in the Military Division, Thursday, Jun 10, 1948; pg. 5; Issue 51094; col F, "Article 11". infotrac.galegroup.com. Retrieved 2009-05-27.
  • AFD withdrawn as of this date and time. I am convinced by Jezhotwells contributions that the subject is notable. Nonetheless I do repeat that the article as created by original creator based on "personal experience" was unacceptable and completely unsourced. Anyway live and learn. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Macedonians (Bulgarian)[edit]

List of Macedonians (Bulgarian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is no political motivation but simply there are no such people. There are Bulgarians or Macedonians, but not both combined. This point of view such as Bulgarian Macedonians are political and propagandistic term. With this the Bulgarians want to prove something other than what the science has already proven.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far from an academic text and too far from neutrality. Delete this page since it is an obvious POV. The article Macedonians (Bulgarians) should be deleted too. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In southwest Bulgaria around the Pirin mountains is an area of Macedonian-speakers. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and speedy close - politically motivated nomination from a POV-warrior. Tried to speedy delete and avoid discussion with the comment: "There's no such thing. Please, explain this crap". Not a serious nomination. --Laveol T 23:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Politically motivated speedy tagging by MacedonianBoy (talk · contribs)(as clearly shown by the argumentation above), and the "technical" nominator of this AfD was just an unfortunate pawn. Does the Arbitration Committee injunction on Macedonia-related articles apply to this? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems a reasonable list---i do not d see the problem, the people are presumably notsble DGG (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This guy, does not know, what he wants. Politically (Bulgarophobistic) motivated tagging. Jingby (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article is much improved without the list and sufficient sources exist. Hopefully it will develop and remain list-free to avoid a return trip here.--Kubigula (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood marriage[edit]

Hollywood marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to have a lot of WP:OR (what constitutes a short marriage, and the lead). It is a list of living people without any referencing (bar one), and the purpose of the list is not clear. I am (currently) neutral on the subject, but this should have an AFD and has been raised on the BLP notice board. Martin451 (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as I suggested before. There are no sources which support the notability of this expression. If there were it could be a Wiktionary entry, but not a Wikipedia article unless the topic was discussed in depth in secondary sources. There are no sources that say the long list of married couples where one or both works in the American entertainment industry are examples of "Hollywood marriages." Nor are there even sources for the data on any of the couples except one.Steve Dufour (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Back to keep per new sourcing) the term "Hollywood marriage" does see a lot of use Google, Google News, and Google Books. Strongly suggest that sense of OR be removed through WP:Cleanup and article receive proper sourcing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If to be deleted, then perhaps do so without prejudice and userfy to author, as a future rewrite may be able to address concerns of this AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - BLP nightmare that is not notable enough for an article. لennavecia 12:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Jennavecia puts it, it's a BLP nightmare. I've removed the list of people for the mean while, but I don't doubt that some idiot is going to put them back. Sceptre (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I followed the links provided by Schmidt, but thery seem to be random combinations of "Hollywood" and "marriage". There's no evidence that it is a term with a special meaning, unlike "Boston marriage", for example. The actual text of the article appears to be original research.   Will Beback  talk  18:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several new sources have been found, so let's see what can be made of them. If the article still has problems after the sources have been mined then we can bring it back here.   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting topic, I wish there were some references. Rsolero (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list of unsourced examples should stay deleted (obviously), but, unfortunate as it is that there are no references, I suspect that such references can be found by someone genuinely interested in the topic. For example, I've quickly found this, and I don't give a rat's ass about the topic. Rd232 talk 21:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's possible that an article on this could be written. I don't think the source you provided really says that the exact expression "Hollywood marriage" is an established phrase. I have never heard it, although I understand the concept, and I have lived in California most of my life. Well, the other part of the state, not near Hollywood. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that source uses the expression 8 times. Rd232 talk 00:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't define it or say that other people use it.Steve Dufour (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it's a newspaper article, not an etymological dictionary. But it's an article which clearly expects the reader to recognise the phrase. Rd232 talk 00:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the article lumps different things together under the one title, "Hollywood marriage." These include weddings done (at least partly) for publicity and marriages entered into sincerely but which failed due to the pressures and temptations of the entertainment world. What was not mentioned is fake marriages done to hide the fact that one or the other person is gay. I don't think you can put all these together under one title, although they are important topics for concern and/or study.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - provisional that the terrible list stays deleted. A Gbooks search returns 550 hits. Abundance of sources. From the first 10 hits I picked four sources which I added to the article. It's a real shame that people find time to comment on AfDs, voting delete due to "lack of sources", without taking that marginally extra effort to actually look for some sources - grossly violating WP:BEFORE - deletion is the last resort. Listing and categorizing a lot of celebrity marriages into "short", "medium" etc is a terrible idea, from WP:BLP concerns - and the list should stay deleted. Power.corrupts (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is improved, especially by losing the list. However it now seems to be saying that any marriage involving people in the movie business (in the USA) is a "Hollywood marriage." Steve Dufour (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete articles because they need improvement. We delete articles if they have no potential for improvement. The results of my Gbooks search proves that this concept is mainstream, passing WP:GNG, and certainly WP:V. Somebody with an interest in the topic can improve it, but it won't be me. The article was taken to AfD because of BLP and OR issues - they are now gone. Power.corrupts (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article going to be about marriages of people in the American entertainment industry? Or is it going to be about the expression "Hollywood marriage"? If the first then I think it is original research. If the second then it probably belongs on Wiki-dictionary.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Wiktionary, I'm unable to judge the development potential, perhaps we could give it a chance, right now it at least passes RS. As somebody noted above, the page Boston marriage has survived so far. I have no subject matter knowledge, I have a regular marriage. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people living in Hollywood do too. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The phrase and phenomenon has been discussed since the 1920s:[6][7] Here's an article in the Telegraph on the topic:Movie stars plus marriage equals disaster. Here's a quick pick of some more sources:[8][9][10] Fences and windows (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for those cites but what could we say in an article based upon them beyond the dictionary definition: "A Hollywood marriage is a marriage between two Hollywood celebrities"?   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • we could say things about the difficulty of having a marriage in the public eye, for one, in the particular context of the movie business. Rd232 talk 07:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • (EC) The problem here seems to be, that all the editors at this AfD, deletes and keeps alike, seem to subscribe to WP:IDONTLIKEIT - so we will have to leave article improvement to somebody else. Thanks to Fences and windows for locating the New York Times article. How painful it may be, the article clearly passes WP:V and WP:GNG. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Bash 2[edit]

Crash Bash 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Video game that may or may not be released more than 4 years in the future. Link to dead page as only source. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thanks for fixing the AFD for me. I didn't notice before I left that it didn't list correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wperdue (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 May 2009
    • Actually, what you filed was a WP:PROD, and it was indeed complete and in order. But because of one person (the creator) who opposed it, I had to initiate this AfD. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had put in an AFD after the PROD was contested but it didn't list correctly. I tried to manually fix it and then ended up deleting it as real life was calling. Either way, I'm pleased to see it listed. Delete, by the way as not having any reliable sources and being at least four years in the future if at all.
There is no sign of that in your contributions history. I guess you made the edits but forgot to click "Save page." That happens to me quite a lot. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IdolExposè[edit]

IdolExposè (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete, nonnotable blog site about American Idol. Most of the paltry Google hits for "idol expose" are unrelated. Alexa has no data. The WP article claims that the website has been "cross-referenced" (?) by numerous media outlets, but all of the links in the article are just for those outlets' home pages. Postdlf (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable due to lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. It is indeed important to actually check references, one hoax today has pics of giant turkeys and such as references, others have press releases, made-up print references, etc. Drawn Some (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a likely hoax or inside joke. Even if neither, since no reliable sources discuss this at all, no notability is established or establishable. Should be speedily nuked.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok not a hoax. http://www.idolexpose.com/. But no reliable coverage anywhere that might establish notability for this lightly traficked bulletin board.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, you must have some pretty high standards if a record 42 users at once is only "lightly trafficked."  ; ) Postdlf (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no coverage of this non-notable bulletin board no matter how you spell or punctuate it.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep. I realize this article might be at the hand of a sock of a banned user, but G5 would obviously get countered by many people in here and sent to an AfD. Since it passed the AfD, and that I've been convinced of his notability, it's a keep. Valley2city‽ 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislav Menshikov[edit]

Stanislav Menshikov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article created by the sock of a banned user, and the subject's notability is not exactly evident. He gets many Google hits presumably due to his prior service as a Soviet spokesman to Western media and because he is a published author, but no clear sign of extensive coverage. I'm bringing this to AfD per the discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Poor_judgment_and_questionable_timing_on_a_speedy_deletion.  Sandstein  21:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per WP:BAN (having after read the ANI post, naturally). We cannot recognize contributions from banned users. They are banned, which means they are not welcome, plain and simple. MuZemike 00:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • G5 is a license, not a mandate. We have it so we can quickly delete problematic material from banned users that doesn't specifically meet one of the other CSDs. But if the article is otherwise useful...--chaser (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:IAR. The subject clearly meets the standard of WP:NOTE, although the article could be improved. Sometimes I think that the goal of building a good encyclopedia ought to take precedence over the ever-important mission of punishing banned users. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Writing a book with John Kenneth Galbraith goes a long way to putting you over the threshold of notability. This guy looks like <redacted> but that's neither here nor there. I looked over WP:ban and there is no absolute requirement to delete articles by banned users; that would be a very baby/bathwater nose/spite-face sort of thing. Hairhorn (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a violation of WP:BLP, and relevant to the discussion here, to observe that Menshikov has some sort of association with Lyndon Larouche (the Larouche article mentions Larouche's presence at an 80th-birthday celebration of Menshikov, with a source, as well as the fact that a Larouche organization published a Menshikov book) and that this might imply some level of fringeness on Menshikov's part. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't see which part of BLP I violated. Could you clarify? Expressing your opinion ("looks like") is not libel, except perhaps in extreme cases. And there is no requirement of neutrality in a deletion discussion; in fact it would make deletion discussions rather difficult. Hairhorn (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redacted text can be see here (please ignore the wrong edit summary). WP:BLP requires more than just refraining from libel. It strictly prohibits all unsourced derogatory content concerning living persons on all of Wikipedia pages. It is certainly possible to refer to this man's adherence to this or that movement in a non-derogatory manner.  Sandstein  09:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstein is right. We should never use derogatory language like "crackpot" about living people (whether editors or subjects). This isn't a forum where cutting remarks are clever. The encyclopedia covers all topics, including beliefs, some of which are strange or unusual and held by a relative few. We're not here to judge. Every topic and subject should be treated in a neutral manner.   Will Beback  talk  09:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment in question was probably careless on my part, taking it out doesn't change the essence of what I said. So I'm not going to whine. However, I will point out that this issue brings up a flaw in BLP, because it requires many other things that are impossible in a deletion debate: neutrality, you can't "appear to take sides", you shouldn't represent the views of a small minority, and so on. There is a "non-article space" section of BLP, but it does little to paper over the hole. Hairhorn (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems very clear to me that G5 speedy deletion is not appropriate in this case: per the ANI discussion, the page was created six months prior to the imposition of the ban, so it is not true that the page creation happened in violation of the ban. I think we should decide this case on the merits of the article rather than blindly applying rules. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the article is much improved. The link to the alleged Galbraith book is dead, what is required are reliable independent sources of recognition and these don't seem to be here. However, the fact that the LP is a fringe operator and is banned from Wikipedia, in my view, does not affect criteria for inclusion. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    ? unless the article is much improved ? We should not keep/delete on these grounds. Is the subject suitable for an article? (Otherwise all stubs should go.. well there is merit in that argument...) Rich Farmbrough, 17:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: Given that the link to Galbraith is referring to this book and is trivially replaceable, it seems the threshold for NOT is met. The complaint that he gets many Google hits because he was a spokesman seems specious; Tony Snow would have disappeared without a trace (notice there's not a single ref in the Early career section) if not for the fact that he was the White House spokesman and worked with Rush. I fail to see the distinction between these two cases - if Snow gets an article, why not Menshikov? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as created by a banned user (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2). Failing that, Delete - marginally notable if that; no reliable sources to support a biography. I might speedy delete this myself if it won't cause confusion. Tom Harrison Talk 14:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tom, check out the ANI link at the top of this discussion; the deletion of the article due to its being created by a later banned user is what started this whole thing. --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Herschelkrustofsky was blocked 5 May 2006. He used sockpuppets to evade the block, causing it to reset. The article was created 18 May 2007 by one of his socks. The probelem isn't the perfectly correct speedy deletion of an article created by a banned user, it's the (botched, necessarily corrected) recreation. Speedy delete was and is appropriate, but if that might cause confusion, the article should still be deleted for the reasons above - lack of notability, and no sources to support a biography. Tom Harrison Talk 15:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Herschelkrustofsky's account was not blocked between 5 may 2007 and 27 July 2007. The article was created on 18 May 2007, not by a banned user, but by a sockpuppet of a user who was not blocked at the time. He wasn't evading a block (whether or not he thought he was). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the logs and Gwen Gale is correct, to my surprise. (Not surprised that she's right, just that I'd forgotten the sequence of events.) It appears that HK's one year block had expired and it wasn't reinstated until July. Though he never returned to editing under his own account, he was apparently using four different socks that month, plus IP adresses. Those accounts had started edited while HK was still banned, and previous socks had been found as late as November 2006, so the ban should have been extended then. I think it's safe to say that his short unblocked period can be ignored considering his bad faith activity before, during, and since. Anyway, let's keep this discussion on whether to retain the article or not. We can't fix the past.   Will Beback  talk  07:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As I said at ANI, I couldn't get too stirred up about seeing the speedy deletion of an article begun by the sock of a user with such a long and woesome block log but otherwise, this AfD is the most straightforward way to deal it now. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Writing a book with John Kenneth Galbraith (one that gets mentioned in Galbraith's obituary [11]) is notable. Writing other books, lecturing internationally, being an official Soviet govt representative on US television, being interviewed by Pravda [12] would probably qualify even without it. Supporting Lyndon LaRouche is ... not a disqualifier. :-) --GRuban (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Arguments that the article was created by a banned user are COMPLETELY irrelevant. A speedy is wholly out of line. The user was banned for edit warring over the controversial Lyndon LaRouche, which apparently is still a battleground and currently protected. There is no evidence whatsoever that the subject of this AfD Stanislav Menshikov was created in an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, so we should relate strictly to the merits of that article. To repeat what has been stated above, writing a book with John Kenneth Galbraith is a clear pass for notability. I agree with the analogy to the Tony Snow article. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes. Notability of the topic is the only thing which should have sway in this AfD, rather than the contrib history. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We shouldn't care about what a banned user did - we banned them because they were being disruptive. Deleting what they did merely because they did it merely extends that disruptiveness beyond the ban. So to address the issue at hand: is the subject notable enough for inclusion (WP:N)? Probably yes. Certainly if Wikipedia had been around in the late 70s when he was at the UN this wouldn't be an issue, I get the impression there must be many sources from that period. Rd232 talk 12:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per GRuban, & the fact that he was a diplomat at the UN -- this is how I understand the passage "spent six years on the Secretariat of the United Nations in New York". -- llywrch (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google Book Search [13] shows many print references to, or publications by the individual, unfortunately many are snippet view, and it is not easy to discern which are reliable and independent sources, or which are from some moonbeam press. But [14] calls him "former UN official and staff member of the Communist Central Committee." [15] says he is of the Russian Academy of Science. He was written about in Newsweek back in 1963[16]. The Hoover Institution in 1974 called him "the third ranking member of the Central Committee's International Department[17]." His co-author Galbreath called him a "[18] distinguished Soviet economist."These bonafides would suffice for anyone else to satisfy WP:BIO. We should be in the business of having as complete and accurate an encyclopedia as possible, and not get into a snit because someone who worked on an article touched it and gave the demonstrably notable subject cooties. If the bad guy put POV material or unsourced statements in the article, then edit it from the sources available down to a referenced stub. Edison (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable for soviet governmental positions if for nothing else. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Menshikov is a leading Russian economist. I have expanded the article slightly. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question So what happens when a banned user does write an article about something that is bulletproof notability? Delete it until someone else rewrites it from scratch? rootology/equality 23:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any topic of "bulletproof" notability will probably be notable enough that an editor in good standing would want to write an article about them. Everything in Wikipedia is done on a case-by-case basis. Any editor in good standing may restore edits made by banned editors, but by doing so they take full responsibility for the material. See WP:BAN They should not give the appearance of being a meat puppet who acts at the behest of a banned user.
    • A particular habit of this banned user, along with many POV pushers, was creating content that supported the POV he was pushing. While in some cases the individual contributions may have appeared NPOV at first glance, a little research showed that they in fact skewed the overall project. While I don't care so much about the notability of Menshikov, I note that this case is a good reason for the rule. Based on how rarely this article has been linked to,[19] it does not appear that anyone other than SPAs have shown interest in the subject. If an involved editor hadn't complained I doubt that the initial deletion would have been noticed by anyone.   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest further discussions of this policy are best conducted at WT:BAN.   Will Beback  talk  00:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as we continue to pretend this is an encyclopedia, I support greater lenience in applying notability standards for articles about legitimate scholars/thinkers than those conerncing pop culture flashes-in-pans. I find the discussion as to whether the article was crated by a (gasp) banned user to be petty and somewhat surreal.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ABCpdf[edit]

ABCpdf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software product. No independent reviews to be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I am the primary author of the ABCpdf article and do have a vested interest in seeing it kept. This is a new article, my first, and I would very much like to see it improved, not deleted. Thanks for your understanding, and my apologies for any wiki faux pas. Affinemesh94464 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - ABCpdf is a popular software development library and I would like to argue that it is more notable than others included on the List of PDF software. Googling for linked sites corroborates this statement. Affinemesh94464 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC):[reply]
ABCpdf (get results) Results 1 - 10 of about 1,140 linking to www.abcpdf.com. (0.30 seconds)
JasperReports (get results) Results 1 - 10 of about 148 linking to jasperforge.org. (0.20 seconds)
iText (get results)Results 1 - 10 of about 190 linking to www.1t3xt.com. (0.34 seconds)
TCPDF (get results)Results 1 - 10 of about 129 linking to www.tcpdf.org. (0.18 seconds)
Poppler(get results) Results 1 - 10 of about 98 linking to poppler.freedesktop.org. (0.22 seconds)
ReportLab (get results)Results 1 - 10 of about 50 linking to www.reportlab.org. (0.27 seconds)
PDF Clown (get results) Results 1 - 5 of 5 linking to www.stefanochizzolini.it/en/projects/clown/. (0.17 seconds)
Affinemesh, I think the reason this argument is failing to persuade anyone is that those other articles may also be about non-notable software and therefore should be deleted as well; we'll never know without evaluating them, and perhaps we should, if only for fairness's sake. See WP:INN for more info.--chaser (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The problem perhaps stems from a lack of consensus on the List of PDF Software article. Is it a list of notable PDF software, or a more inclusive list of all PDF software? The former would be exceedingly short, whereas the latter could at least be of worth to those compiling other articles or reviews, etc. Unfortunately items on the list are typically deleted if they don't have their own article. This really could do with cleaning up, but I'm hesitant to debate it for fear of being perceived as biased.Affinemesh94464 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inclusion of ABCpdf is useful for those seeking a commercially developed library with professional support. No other is currently mentioned on List of PDF software, or specifically for Microsoft operating systems.Affinemesh94464 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although blogs in themselves may not be considered reliable sources, perhaps the fact that ABCpdf is being talked about is worthy of mention. Google for 'abcpdf blog' - 9,320 results.Affinemesh94464 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is TheDesignspace a reliable source? It looks like a blog or somebody's website.--chaser (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The site is apparently maintained by an IT professional working for a university. It contains 476 articles. Netcraft reports the site as first seen in July 2002, ranking it 353030. The site is registered on its own domain, not a blog-hosting service. The articles are not written under a pseudonym. I appreciate this isn't exactly the [International Journal of Computational Science], ranked lower by Netcraft, but it is independent. I'm not sure this is a blog, and the author doesn't use the term to describte the site, and might be offended if someone did! Any volunteers? :) Affinemesh94464 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refgardless of whether it is a blog or not, it is essentially somebody's website where they write about some stuff. There's no evidence to indicate that this one person's opinion would contribute to the notability of the product. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the site's owner: "This site serves both as a place to explore my interests and as an extra memory space to store the solutions to the software and web development issues I encounter daily. I began writing these posts and articles to avoid having to solve the same problem twice. Hopefully they will help others as well." ([20]). I refer you to WP:DUCK. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources. Blogs don't count. If it does get more coverage (and a single review is not likely to meet notability), the articel can be created then. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong - some blogs do count! ...
"Are weblogs reliable sources?
In many cases, no. Most private weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a privately-owned blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the self-publication provision of the verifiability policy.
Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available."[1]
Note that this does not explicitly exclude all blogs. If someone would kindly point out where blogs are forbidden it would be much appreciated. Affinemesh94464 (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - If you can find a blog that is a reliable source and establishes notability for the software, then you can post it for evauation at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But generally speaking, blogs aren't reliable sources, and even more so for the purposes for establishing notability. Of course there are exceptions to this guideline, but they are very narrowly defined as you have already noted and quoted. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Blogs do not count as reliable sources, if ABCpdf is reviewed in a professional journal that may count.
  • There are no citations to any articles not written by Websupergoo in the article.
  • There are several blogs with unfavorable reviews of this product therefore the references above depict the bias that has made this article controversial (see the edits on the article that have been undone for 'unreliable' references with a negative tone).
  • The user petitioning to keep the article has stated they are close to Websupergoo by placing their promotional work on my talk page therefore validating that this article was not written from a neutral perspective: [[21]].
  • [Software Technology Resources] is not a reliable source.

MajorDorkus (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note MajorDorkus has made several contributions to the ABCpdf article. These were typically regarded as defamatory, which is why they were removed by myself and other wikipedians. There is a reference to ABCpdf on his user page as part of the standard vandalism warning notice and was certainly not intended to promote ABCpdf. I sincerely apologise to MajorDorkus for locating this here. I only became aware this location may not have been appropriate after WikiDan61 advised MajorDorkus for committing a similar mistake. Please also note the User_talk:MajorDorkus page and ABCpdf section were not created by myself. The single addition I made was simply out of courtesy. To suggest this is promotional work is quite objectionable.Affinemesh94464 (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged. I am unfamiliar with their printed publication, but suspect this would be similar to their website. Affinemesh94464 (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the content could do with some improvement but the page should be kept.
PDF Libraries are a specialist area. As such you should consider that the coverage of them is likely to involve a different set of media than say Alan Wilkins. This doesn't mean that they are less notable. Just that they are different.
The libraries listed earlier are a hotch potch. Some are appropriate (eg iText) and some are not. Some (eg PDFLib) are missing. However let's talk about iText as a good example of something reviewed in ways appropriate to the subject matter.
The iText entry is pretty self referential. The references are related to the iText web site or other parts of the iText community. The books are written by the author of iText. However I think that is fair enough because the software is notable simply by reference to the size of the community. The natural place to pull in details of iText is from that community. Indeed there is no-where else to get that information.
Or an entry such as Graphics Device Interface (Microsoft GDI). This is similar in that it is a similarly important entry for a similarly obscure type of library. Again you'll find that almost all the references are straight back to Microsoft. That's because most of the information comes from Microsoft.
ABCpdf is very similar. Being a web based project it has a community rooted in the web. So you wouldn't expect to find scholarly reviews. For the substance of the wikipedia entry you would expect a fair amount of reference to the source company itself. The same as iText or GDI.
Looking for external evidence of notability you would expect to find widespread small-scale discussions. So we're not talking big articles. We're typically talking about small, but widespread, reviews and discussions of quality levels from high through to low. This is exactly what we see. For example:
http://geekswithblogs.net/VROD/archive/2007/01/18/103868.aspx
http://forums.asp.net/t/1347592.aspx
http://my.opera.com/zeeans/blog/2006/12/07/abcpdf-landscape-example
These kinds of things are good as supporting information but they don't really work very well as references.
Yes this type of thing does spill over into the press. For example see this review in PC Magazine. Note that ABCpdf is the first item of software mentioned after Acrobat so it would appear that the author thought it was in some way notable.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1637611,00.asp
Some competitors obviously feel it is notable.
http://www.corda.com/abcpdf.php
As do some companies.
http://www.smilinggoat.net/development.aspx
So I know that ideally one would be looking for paper article or books on this software but that kind of evidence is more appropriate for a playwright rather than an item of software. The criteria used for software is slightly different simply because the subject is different.

Rollinghills (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Nobody is expecting that software will be documented in sources writing about biographies. However, there hs yet to be any deomstrated significant coverage in any sources, including sources that cover software. The PC Magazine article is a passing mention of the product. But PC Magazine (and many other mgazines) do cover software and do reviews, yet there isn't any for this product. -- Whpq (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is no clear demonstration of notability.--Kubigula (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bjørn Ingvar Kydland[edit]

Bjørn Ingvar Kydland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Bjørn Ingvar Kydland plays in the Norwegian First Division. This is the second tier in Norway, and is not a fully professional league. Fails WP:ATHLETE. No other significant coverage that fulfills WP:BIO#basic criteria. Rettetast (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those roughly translate into match reports where he gets a name check rather than an article specifically about himself, hardly enough to pass WP:N. --Jimbo[online] 08:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's just patently wrong, in both those articles he's the subject of the headlines. Lampman (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A headline in a newspaper doesn't make a player notable. --Jimbo[online] 21:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. Trivial mentions in reliable sources, no significant coverage. لennavecia 17:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going2college.com[edit]

Going2college.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be a particularly notable website. Forum shows total of 180 users. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Should qualify for A7. Their first press release is on May 20, that's the only news piece and that wasn't picked up by any of the outlets either. It's too new to be notable as a company. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. A single press release isn't going to cut it. -- Whpq (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Fox[edit]

Kirk Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject doesn't meet the notability standards of WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. (N.B. The sole named contributor to the article appears to have been the subject himself – until the article was tagged with ''{{coi}}'', after which it's been IPs.) I've no prejudice to recreation should notability be established in the future. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 21:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - He appears to be an up-and-coming comedian who is on the cusp as evidenced by this one sentence mention. And he has an award from a comedy festival which is vaguely mentioned. And there is even a full paragraph on him. But taken altogether, this is not substatial enough for me to say it meets notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - While I cannot agree with all of the sourcing provided by Michael (For example: claiming a leading role in A Heart to Tender which is actually a 6 minute comdey short), having dedicated comedy special on the Comedy Network is enough to push me over from a weak delete. -- Whpq (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Did some research per WP:AFTER and was able to expand and source the article. He meets WP:ENTERTAINER ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions."). Needs more, but there is much more available in Google News. As long as the COI author is mindful to not edit himself, the article can grow naturally. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Can you point to specific coverage from the results, because my own search, as I mentioned, only uncovers passing mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another reply – Michael's list of the subject's film and TV appearances is a big step forward for the article; kudos to him for this undertaking. It's clearer that the subject has been and remains a working actor. I've sampled (though not exhaustively) the filmography that Michael provided and see small parts in most films and top-10 billing in some non-notables. I wonder, though, if someone can articulate just how WP:ENTERTAINER is satisfied with regard to significant roles in multiple, notable productions. Thanks, Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 16:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response My reasoning is this: Bio's basic criteria state "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability", which statement indicates that if the depth of coverage is itself not substantial, muliple instances of less-than-substantial but more-than-trival may be considered when determining notability. And then at WP:ENT we have "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". His having significant roles in notable films is not to be discounted simply because he has also had minor roles in non-notable films. All actors begin with minor and work toward significant. Such is part of the career process. Some examples....
        1. Post Grad, supporting role in notable film... not an unnamed descriptive, but a named role.[25]
        2. A Heart too Tender, lead role [26]
        3. Still Waiting..., significant role... even made center on the DVD's cover [27]
        4. Heckle U co-star and co-writer of CBS's debut webisode series. [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]
        5. Pauly Shore Is Dead major supporting and co-writer.[33], [34], [35], [36]
        6. Tennis, Anyone...?, co-star, co-writer, and co-producer [37], [38], [39]
      • Also to be considered per WP:ENT are his significant multiple roles as a stand up comedian:
        1. Natural Born Komics, co-star and co-writer [40], [41], [42], [43]
        2. Comedy Central Presents special Comedy Central Presents: Kirk Fox, Its all him... [44], [45], [46], [47]
        3. Live at Gotham,co-star [48], [49], [50], [51]
        Note: Not having an article on Wikipedia (yet) does not mean a film or project is itself non-notable... it only means the article is not yet written. I believe the few examples above to be indicative of his meeting WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael, I think we're just singing from different hymnals about notability of this subject. Nonetheless, the tide seems to be moving in the keep direction, which perhaps it should. Kudos again for your comprehensive work on this piece; it's vastly improved. Regards, Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 05:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those kind words, thank you. If kept, I expect the article to continue to grow and remain worthy of Wikipedia. Good editing, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe Michael has shown enough to just push this over the notability line. Well done.--Kubigula (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real Intent, Inc.[edit]

Real Intent, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy deleted for a second time due to having no clear notability. Disputed by original editor, so going to AfD for further input. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Without the pov stuff it is WP:CSD#A7, but giving the editor a week to improve it is not going to hurt anything. ZabMilenko 00:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just to establish a precedent against re-creation. Non-consumer business with no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Such a precedent would be a shame. Nothing should prevent the company from becoming notable on its own. If a future AFD needed to reference this the argument would indeed be a weak one. ZabMilenko 01:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The company has created automated design verification software. This is not something that maintream press will cover. Trade magazines have covered this company, primarily the EE Times. [52], [53], [54] and [55] is a sample of the news coverage fished out from a sea of press releases in a Google News search. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - two of the hits above are press releases, and the remaining two do not constitute "significant coverage". I'm not saying this company can't be notable in the future; just that it isn't now.  Frank  |  talk  18:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Yes, a couple of the sources could be interpreted as regurgitated press releases. But I don't see how you can say that the article coverage is not significant when the first article is specifically about the company, as in it is the primary subject of the coverage, and runs for 12 paragraphs. And the second article is an interview, so again, it is the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - both are written by the same person, three months apart, in the same "magazine". That doesn't constitute "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" as specified in WP:CORP.  Frank  |  talk  19:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My apologies. I think I've misinterpreted your statement. I was referring to the very specific articles being more than mere mentions whereas you were looking at the coverage overall. I do agree that the overall coverage coming only from a single magazine is problematic. That's why my I've made my keep a weak one. I think it's enough to get by for notability, but it's arguable, and I can see why one would favour a deletion. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - that's what discussion is all about.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. لennavecia 17:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Moreau[edit]

Caroline Moreau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable activist. Google search returns only self-promotion and trivial mentions. Article is faded to be an eternal unsourced stub. Damiens.rf 20:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I don't even recall specifically why I created this stub. If my rationale of her being the lead author on a "key premature birth study" is inaccurate, then there is no notability to speak of. - RoyBoy 00:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons above. No notability shown. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Adding some information about research productivity from Scopus. He own CVis a little out of date. /either notable or else near it., DGG (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let me preface this by saying she may pass on some other grounds besides WP:PROF, e.g. if she is a well-known activist or a science popularizer (I'll defer to others to judge this aspect). However, if the primary basis is WP:PROF, then she conclusively fails the notability test. The article's wording suggests she's a professor/PI, but the Princeton website lists her as a postdoc. However, the real issue is her scientific record, which is misrepresented in the article. From a quick Web of Science search:
  • The main claim of notability the article furnishes is this: 'Her most cited paper, "Contraception: From accessibility to efficiency " in Human Reproduction 18 (5), pp. 994-999 z)2993) has been cited 48 tijmes [sic]' – we are led to believe that she is lead author or primary contributor. WoS gives the author list as Bajos N, Leridon H, Goulard H, Oustry P, Job-Spira N, and the COCON group. Checking the actual publication, we find her name listed in a footnote. Evidently her contribution was not sufficient to qualify for the primary author list.
  • The other main claim the article makes is this: "She has published 30 [[peer-reviewed article, in standard journals". WoS lists only 10, mostly non-cited journal articles (although one of them does stand out from the rest with 17 citations). Why the discrepancy? Partially, it is the fact that some of the "peer-reviewed standard journals" listed on her CV are not academic journals at all, so they do not appear in WoS. For example, checking the "Population and Societies" (a 2004 article on her CV – note that the 'full text' link next to this pub actually goes to some entirely unrelated Pubmed page) homepage, it describes itself as a "popular science journal published in French and English". As near as I can tell by browsing a few articles, this publication is something like a population-related news magazine – articles tabulate a lot of facts and statistics, but do not furnish new research results (which scientific journals, by definition, must do). Here's a recent example article. The other factor in the 10/30 discrepancy seems to be other articles that she only appears in a "group author" footnote on (as above).
Again, perhaps she qualifies as a science popularizer, but I think the most accurate description of this individual as an academic is that she is a postdoc who has a research record roughly commensurate with others that are also early in their careers. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
It is accepted that authorship is only valid if the name is in the main list of authors. "Acknowledgements to...", Useful discussions with...", "and the something group" etc. do not count. Academic practice is to list all contributing authors in author list even if there are 100 of them. Some high energy physics groups do this and may have an author list of half a page of fine print in their papers. Record of LP is adequate for an early career researcher but the revelations of Agricola44 show that WP notabilty has not yet been achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Not a notable researcher. DGG, your edits to this article were below your normal par. Fences and windows (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It doesn't matter what criteria she can sneak in under, still not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa F.C. squad changes[edit]

Larissa F.C. squad changes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Reason for PROD was "This article is not appropriate. Transfers should be listed on individual season articles or even in a list of all Greek clubs' transfers in a certain time period." For reason for PROD removal, see Talk:Larissa F.C. squad changes. – PeeJay 20:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; information should be contained within relevant season articles. No need for this stand-alone article. GiantSnowman 21:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary standalone article. --Angelo (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody's going to type this statement. It is grammatically faulty, ending in a preposition. Valley2city‽ 20:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and territories Michael Palin has travelled to[edit]

List of countries and territories Michael Palin has travelled to (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just a list of countries someone has visited. Not encyclopedic, no sources, not indications of notability. TJ Spyke 19:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — merge with Michael Palin and add redirect. This subject doesn't require an article of its own. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per AustralianRupert. Close to trivia. Bearian (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything but merge - There really is no space in the Michael Palin article for this unimportant information. Garion96 (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Oppose Merge. It isn't close to trivia. It is trivia and shouldn't be merged. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteand do not merge. Totally non-encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject matter is already covered in a much more encyclopedic fashion in the individual articles about the TV series, where it is in context. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Mendelson[edit]

Leslie Mendelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Swan Feathers (Leslie Mendelson album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

COI Biography added by User:Rykodisc, Leslie's label. Notability does not seem to be there; does not meet WP:BAND. Easy on the eyes and the ears alike, but unfortunately not ready for inclusion. Gigs (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. No coverage to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added a few notable pieces of coverage in an effort to help keep this page up. Upon research, Ryko is in fact a notable label (owned by Warner Music Group), so I see no reason why it shouldn't stay. Dr3w05 (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current standard is two releases on a notable label. These must be not be future releases. Gigs (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently these links from Amazon.com and Encore Arts Magazine have been automatically removed. Why is this, considering other artists have similar external links from press on their own pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr3w05 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for creating a new account by the way. There is no need to pretend that you are not Rykodisc, it is actually better to disclose it. Your links were removed because they were to Myspace. I don't see any links to Amazon or Encore being removed, only myspace links, which are generally forbidden. As you have pointed out, Rykodisc carries several notable musicians, and your edits are welcome here, if they aren't overly promotional. I know there's a lot of rules to absorb right now, but try to hang with it. Gigs (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Might be notable someday, but not today. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per invalid deletion rationale and guaranteed WP:SNOW result. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crossrail[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Crossrail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Because the project needs to be, so the article needs to be 86.142.163.195 (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support - it needs to be deleted Mebeme (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accord floors[edit]

Accord floors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral on the matter. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Non-notable company. No information found in a Google News search. No references or cites in the article. ShoesssS Talk 19:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Non-notable company. Just here for promotion puposes. No sources. Eeekster (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like an advertisement. Does not meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Some claims to importance, but there exists no references which support these claims, so there is no proof that the company meets the inclusion criteria spelled out at WP:N and WP:CORP. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Also, given that the author's name was "Accord floors", it's pretty clear this was promotional. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cleaned up the formatting a bit and stripped out some of the advert language (which largely involved dropping the last two paragraphs), but it's still not a notable company.Tyrenon (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Prinz von Sachsen-Anhalt[edit]

Oliver Prinz von Sachsen-Anhalt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is not inherited -- I believe this one fails WP:BIO. Gsearch turns up only nominal hits, Gnews didn't turn up anything at all. Links in references section are to his adopted father, not to him. RayTalk 18:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hill Valley (Back to the Future)[edit]

Hill Valley (Back to the Future) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

mostly fun craft and original research. information provided are mostly of no interest to readers. PongPias (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC) — PongPias (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No interest to anyone who isn't a fan of Back to the Future and its sequels, but to those who are it could be of great interest. --Susan118 (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Fun craft?" Hee hee. Seriously, it's in-universe fansite material with not enough out of universe coverage to warrant an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't fun craft something like a jet ski? --Susan118 (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's the name of a new Jo-Ann Fabrics competitor. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a lot of information there about shooting locations, parts of the "town" that were used in other movies, etc. This isn't a little blurb about a town in an unknown film, but a lengthy article detailing many aspects of the fictional location of three notable films. I'm not saying it couldn't use some work and be cut down a bit, but it shouldn't be deleted.--Susan118 (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited, the films are notable, things linked to or appaearing in the films may not be. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well written – well referenced – informative piece that has been around since 2003. Why bring to AFD? ShoesssS Talk 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe because it's full of trivia and written in universe, with little potential of becoming out of universe? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Am I to respond to your comment or just let it speak for itself? ShoesssS Talk 19:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep detailed and sourced article on setting appearing in multiple works. Fun cruft! Artw (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if those saying keep can come up with third party reliable sources to take it out of universe then I'll change my vote, but I don't see that happening. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well written and encyclopdic article, that though of no interest to the nom, may well be so for many other Wikipedia readers and even some editors. I do not see the sourced informations as being WP:OR in their factual presentation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I think several parts of the article are arguably droppable as being "crafty", and perhaps a few of the in-universe articles could be rolled together in some form, total deletion seems like overkill (particularly when compared with things that I'm getting vigorous arguments for keeping). Frankly, it's not a bad article, it's reasonably detailed, and there's enough that's not tied into the in-universe location that while a reshuffle may be in order, a total axing of the article seems like something that's a bit overboard.Tyrenon (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, even if all of the "in-universe" content was removed (although I still think it could just be re-worded), there would still be enough for a decent article. --Susan118 (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a key plot device to 3 notable films. While I agree it needs some references, that alone does not warrant deletion without time to insert such references. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is well written and anyone who calls this "fan craft" or anything like that should remember thats who is going to want to read this article fans of the movie people who are interested in Back to the Future. The list of changes to the locations is interesting and a good reference here would have to be the extras on the DVDs where the directors talk about how they built the Hill Valley set in each time period. Watching the movies is the best source of information here too. Bhowden (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't address the article's failure to establish notability -- primary sources might be useful to substantiate descriptions of the city, and commentary tracks offer production information, but there's no evidence any third-party sources have offered significant coverage of the topic (i.e. that the topic is notable). "It's useful" and "It's interesting" are insufficient reasons to create/retain Wikipedia content. --EEMIV (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a lot of original research here, but there's also a lot of real-world information sourced to reliable sources, sufficient to demonstrate notability. The OR can be removed or sourced without deleting the article entirely. Powers T 14:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Facione[edit]

Mario Facione (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable former mobster and failed politician. Article is little more than a long quote from a newspaper. Fails WP:BIO. Astronaut (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -Just not enough coverage. The only paper I found covering Mr. Facione was the Deseret News with a grand total of nine article all written between August 1 and August 14, 2005 which coincides with the release of his book. In addition, a Google News search of the book shows the same 9 articles as mentioned above. With no additional coverage outside of Utah, I would have to say delete as just a local guy with his 15 minutes of fame long gone. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 19:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His 15 minutes may not quite be up yet[56], but I think Shoessss' has the right analysis.--Kubigula (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails notability above any local level, not to mention now being very much out of date. Would need a major overhaul to reach notability, and would need to drop what is probably not fair use of a newspaper article (which, considering how much is, used, might border on a copyright violation).Tyrenon (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleidica[edit]

Kaleidica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert the notability of its subject, and appears to exist only for the sake of promoting Kaleidica, a commercial software package. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Agree with nominator, a strictly promotional piece. No information available on either the product or the company that developed the software Fishrock Studios on Google News where I would expect at least a PR News release. In this light, no pun intended, delete is the only choice. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yeah, this feels like advertisement, and it feels non-notable. At the very least, a good bit of the article would need to be taken out for it to cease being an ad, and even then I'd need to see a review or two of it from a decently mainstream or industry publication to be convinced of notability.Tyrenon (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cheers. I'mperator 21:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Richman[edit]

Sheldon Richman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Probably non-notable. A prod on the page was contested 700 ks ago with "contest prod - he is a well-known author & journalist and thus notable - will address sourcing & other concerns ASAP", however, the page has not been edited since. Bob A (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - lack of reliable sources, lack of notability. Appears to be a noisy libertarian in the blogosphere, but that's about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I contested the prod, but haven't had a chance to cleanup the article yet. Mr. Richman appears to be a fairly well-known author. For example, his papers high have significant citations on GScholar: [57]. He is the author of multiple notable books (as defined by WP:GNG - being covered by multiple RS). He has also held several significant posts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"For example, his papers high significant citations on GScholar", I don't understand that sentence. Bob A (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in present form. Few cites on Google Scholar, no publisher given for books authored, does not pass academic/educator standard. Independent influence must be demonstrated. May do better as journalist/blogger if article is rescued. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep it and improve it. One should be very cautious before asking to delete an entry. I pretend that eradication of this entry is not the best solution. Only few things should be removed or modified. --Ludovic Sesim (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One should be very cautious in all of one's edits. But the sky will not fall down if a marginal BLP is deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton County Democratic Party[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hamilton County Democratic Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, local party organizations are not notable. The previous afd was for the Indiana County org of the same name, but the same reasoning applies. It is without precedent to have local party organizations listed in wikipedia. rogerd (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Van Zant[edit]

Greg Van Zant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recent controversy shows that this page only existed to put the individual in a bad light. While I, for one, am sure that all the links painted a truly accurate picture of this man, I can see nothing that warrants this guy having his own artilce. This is an orphan article that provides no useful information. Certainly there are far, far more accomplished coaches than this guy. Timneu22 (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PropheC[edit]

The PropheC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prodded by someone else with explanation "The article was speedily deleted, restored, deleted, and restored again. This is the third version, as far as I know. The sources are still the same - insufficient" but prod was removed. Filing AFD on behalf of the prodder. DreamGuy (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and maybe salt after all the re-creations. None of the sources is significant. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the author of misplaced {{prod}}. --Vejvančický (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for extremely poor source quality. All are useless, with the exception of the BBC, which barely mentions him. Quantumobserver (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coverage in reliable source is lacking. - Whpq (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources - all are blogs, zines and websites. Someday, perhaps, but not now notable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable autobiography/vanity piece lacking any reliable sources. لennavecia 18:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, due to the stellar improvements from others. Nominator withdrew and now supports keeping the article. Jamie☆S93 11:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perth Leisure Pool[edit]

Perth Leisure Pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I see no evidence that this pool is notable, article is unreferenced. Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC) I've been away and not able to log on for a few days, so sorry missed most of the debate. Article is now unrecognisable from the one I nominated and all my concerns have been addressed. Thanks to the contributors. Keep. Paste Let’s have a chat. 20:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It seems that the article is unreferenced because there is nothing to cite. Quantumobserver (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Switching to support based on improvements made. This seems to be a successful rescue. Quantumobserver (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:LOCAL. It's a swimming pool, we don't need articles about all public pools and nothing makes this one stand out besides it occasionally being a health hazard. Drawn Some (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because good god what was somebody thinking in even creating it. An encyclopedia is WP:NOT the yellow pages/phone book/guidebook. DreamGuy (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This facility has attracted over 10 million visitors. Numerous references and articles can be located (some of which I have already added into the article. Article meets the general notability guidelines. Varbas (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as a sockpuppet of banned account User:Azviz. DreamGuy (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I'm concerned, my original {{prod}} rationale (Unless there's something particularly notable about this pool – and there's nothing in the article to suggest there is – it's unencylopedic, non-neutral, and bordering on advertising. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages) still stands. Their own website may indeed claim that it's "one of the most popular visitor attractions in Scotland", but I don't believe it for an instant, any more than I believe that a swimming pool in a town with a population of 43,450 has actually had 10 million visitors. (10 million over 20 years = 500,000 per year; just to put that in perspective, the five National Galleries of Scotland museums combined had 842,958 visitors last year. – iridescent 21:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not just a swimming pool, as it is a year-round indoor complex which includes 5 swimming pools with flumes, bubble beds and other water features, a gym, health spa, cafe, creche and (for sunny days) an outdoor children's play area. In 2006, 3 years ago, it was noted that it received over 700,000 visitors a year: Scotland, 7th edition. Not just a swimming pool. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With 500,000 visitors a year, this recreational facility is HUGELY popular in Scotland. The article should be kept on the evidence of verifiable references, not in the editors' belief of whether or not such referenced facts are true. Varbas (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely; provide a verifiable reference (at the moment, the source is "The leisure pool’s facility operations manager Debbie Gillespie") for the fact that the entire population of Perth – man, woman, and child – visit the pool 12 times a year on average, and I'll believe it. – iridescent 19:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
500,000? Certainly its visitors are not limited to only residents of Perth. In 2006, 3 years ago, it was noted that it received over 700,000 visitors a year: Scotland, 7th edition. The city of Anaheim, California, with a population of almost 350,000, hosts Disneyland. In 2008 Disneyland received over 14 million visitors. No one suggests that this fact means each citizen of Anahiem visited the theme park 40 times a year. When tourists visit a popular site, they come from all over. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has references and I just added another one. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be having difficulty understanding the difference between references showing that something actually exists versus reliable sources showing that something is notable in general, let alone notable enough for a full encyclopedia article. The kinds of sources added do not show any notability. Quit the contrary, in fact. DreamGuy (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see our deletion policy which makes it clear that deletion is only for hopeless cases. A major facility of this sort is clearly not hopeless and I have demonstrated this by adding another source. In this, a learned Professor confirms that this is a "major tourist attraction" and provides details of a significant public health incident which occurred there. There are thousands more sources I could sift through but this seems more than adequate. Such simple searches demonstrate that editors such as User:Quantumobserver above are quite mistaken when they suppose that there is nothing to cite about this place. Their opinions should therefore be disregarded. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think this pool is notable because a kid took a shit in it (which is all that "an episode of accidental faecal contamination" actually means)? Oh, and please point me to the part of the deletion policy where it says "deletion is only for hopeless cases". And just a hint: saying of everyone who disagrees with you that "their opinions should therefore be disregarded" is unlikely to help your case. – iridescent 22:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our opinion of the incident is unimportant. The point is that the public health authorities consider the matter noteworthy. Note also that their report confirms the vistor numbers which you disbelieved above. As for our polices, I provided a link. See also our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you provided a link to a policy that says nothing of the kind. What our deletion policy actually says is "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)". Which thus far nobody has provided any evidence of this meeting. I am not going to continue this conversation with you if you're not even going to bother reading what you're citing. – iridescent 22:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have abundant evidence of notability. Note that WP:AFD states, "Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." This article can clearly be improved by normal editing, as I have demonstrated, by reference to architectural and medical authorities. It is therefore not a good candidate for deletion. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a hopeless case by the notability requirements, and trying to pretend those say somethign other than what they do is just wikilawyering. And I must object to you continually removing my comments on this page with information that the closing admin needs to see. I don't care if you would rather not believe the user is a sockpuppet of a banned user, but the individual is actively being investigated as such and his vote is therefore potentially invalid and that info should be here for the closing admin to see. This behavior of yours is highly disruptive, and could lead to you being blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S.: No longer just potentailly invalild, but ompletely invalid, as the account has been blocked for sockpuppetry. On top of not being allowed to remove other people's comments, you were wrong on this. Please keep this in mind for the future so you do not repeat such behavior. If you do I will not hesitate to get you blocked for disruption. DreamGuy (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a shame, too... as I try to assume good faith in any editor's efforts to improve the project. At least the concerns were proven valid even though the messenger was not... and several articles have thus been improved per AFTER, PRESERVE and POTENTIAL. Yes, the closer will disregard his specific opinion... but since AfD is not a vote, the closer will also undoubtedly look to the other comments and will make a judgement based upon the article that went to AfD, comments made before improvement, the article that was subsequently forced to be improved, and the comments after the improvement. Happy editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as now meeting all Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, per improvements and sourcing added since the nomination to meet the nom's concern of "unreferenced" (per WP:AFTER AND WP:POTENTIAL) and per precedents set for inclusion of regional notable venues if properly sourced, as notability for a few million is just as suitable as notability for a few hundred million if it meets the guidelines for inclusion. The article now leaps past the WP:GNG, despite WP:IDONTLIKEIT views (sorry, but it does) with in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia does not state that such are not worthy of inclusion. Wikipedia does state the requirements that need be met... and this one now qualifies. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: Nothing is "hopeless", if someone addresses the situation, is willing to fix it, and actually does so. Look at the before, and look at the after. A marked improvement. Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable and verifiable sources currently in the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it has 700,000 visitors a year, then its notable. Use common sense Dream Focus 11:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep appears to have recieved coverage in multiple reliable sources. Thanks are due to the clean up crew who were able to back up claims of notability! -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator's concerns appear to have been addressed, as the expanded article indicates notability pretty clearly and is well-sourced, and there are no other problems which merit deletion. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion, not even from the nominator (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Point Schools[edit]

Bay Point Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completing another red linked afd that nobody cared to fix because they love leaving everything to me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is actually a quite important alternative high school that undertakes controversial (and not always successful) reform programmes. There are plenty of news sources available [58][59] but I am restricted from expanding the page because virtually all are behind paywalls. However, the need to await an editor who has access to the archives doesn't detract from the notability. TerriersFan (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the four sources include two links to the school's website, a broken link, and a non-RS charity. Coverage just isn't there... Quantumobserver (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sorry this is not a basis for deletion. We delete when a page cannot be reliably sourced not because the sources have yet to be added. Please see my comments, above. TerriersFan (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to keep on looking closer at TF's links; saw the horrible writing in the top few previews and dismissed too early. Quantumobserver (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TerriersFan. Rescue. Meets my standards for high schools. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per TerriersFan's links. There are sources there, we just need someone with access to the older articles to expand the article.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject to improvement in sources. Plastikspork (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's notable enough. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Lee (singer)[edit]

Jesse Lee (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable singer with but one released single. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as creator. The CMT and GAC sources assert notability as significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, and she has a charted single on a major Billboard chart. I agree that she's on the edge, but I think that she's close enough to warrant a keep. The chart position can be verified here (look under Country, and keep in mind that R&R's country chart is the same as Billboard's — those with Billboard subscriptions already know that she's debuted, but we peons won't be able to see the full country chart until tomorrow). Also note that the article was only one minute old when it was listed at AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can't say I've ever heard of her, but the sources in the article show she meets the notability and verifiability standards. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This performer satisfies criterion #2 here. Quantumobserver (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TenPoundHammer. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I've spent too much time deleting "he hasn't released a record but he's really cool" articles, and I missed the references. Nomination withdrawn. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russia–Seychelles relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Russia–Seychelles relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable secondary sources cover these non-notable relations in the depth required for an article of any interest. Hipocrite (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete > unreferenced, little evidence to suggest that there can be much notable to go there. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 01:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 01:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep During the Soviet-era France-Albert René aligned Seychelles with the USSR in many respects, and numerous treaties signed with the USSR are still in force with the Russian Federation. There is material with which to build an article, and several factoids have been included in the article already. --Russavia Dialogue 02:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Unreferenced" is a good reason to add an {{unreferenced}} tag, not an AfD tag. I would have opposed deletion for just this reason alone. However, I'm opposing due to the fact that the article has recently been sufficiently expanded.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:51, May 27, 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I suspect the article got a good overhaul after the nomination, but there's enough there that the article feels justified.Tyrenon (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added a date there, and meetings about the specific countries. If its kept, I can add more information. Russian Luxembourger (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Seychelles article is extremely thorough, and has lots of "see main article" links. I searched all of them for likely terms, and found nothing (repeat nothing) related to Russia except in Foreign relations of Seychelles where we learn "Seychelles' foreign policy position has placed it generally toward the left of the spectrum within the Non-Aligned Movement. Russia, the United Kingdom, France, India, the People's Republic of China, and Cuba maintain embassies in Victoria" (that is the full extent of Russia's importance). I salute the efforts of those who have found that certain minor events occurred in the 1980s, and that 2008 trade totalled US$6.23 million. However, the information on the Russian tourism implies that nothing notable occurs in the relations between these countries. Where is the secondary source saying that the relations are notable? Fails Bilateral relations. Johnuniq (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You must be aware that Wikipedia is not meant to be a source for information to write other articles on. You should never be using a tertiary source for serious research, and never be using self referential arguments. You argument appears to be "It doesn't already exist in Wikipedia in other article space, so it should never appear anywhere in Wikipedia." It is the Johnuniq Self Referential Paradox. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bilateral relations is written by editors, some of whom took Belgium-Russia relations, Cyprus-Russia relations and Madagascar-Russia relations to AfD, so unfortunately, that doesn't hold too much weight in these discussions. We don't need secondary sources to state that relations are notable, but secondary sources are used by us editors to ascertain whether a subject is notable. Take this book for example - written by the Africa Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Of course, to find that, one would have to use a funny looking language called Russian, with search terms such as 'Россия Сейшелы отношения' finding plenty of sources which can be used. One can also search for Soviet-Seychelles relations, which indicates that the USSR was a major donour of military aid to Rene, and that Seychelles was instrumental in the USSR-USA rivalry in the Indian Ocean. As to assertions that Russian tourism to Seychelles indicates nothing notable is in my opinion hogwash - tourism is built up with the assistance of governments, such as negotiation of visa-free travel agreements (of which there is one), negotiation of air service agreements (of which there is one), promotion by government-funded tourist promotion departments (of which Seychelles is spending US$5 million in Russia alone on I believe), and it also indicates trade and cultural ties between the countries - tourism doesn't happen overnight and without governmental support, and as Seychelles garners a lot of its GDP from tourism-related industries, tourism between Seychelles and other countries is of course going to be notable in their relations. There is notability here, both in historical and contemporary contexts. --Russavia Dialogue 18:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's good. But, if the relations are so notable, why have no editors previously mentioned something about "Seychelles" in Russia (or Soviet Union), or noted something about "Russia" in Seychelles? As I said, the series of Seychelles articles is extremely comprehensive; I take the fact that "Russia" is not mentioned (except trivially in Foreign relations of Seychelles) as a good clue that while there is a relation between Russia and Seychelles, that relation is not notable. For example, if the tourism that you mentioned had in fact never occurred, would anything in the world be signicantly different? The tourism is probably important for the Seychelles; therefore it should be mentioned in one of the Seychelles articles. There is no reason for an encyclopedia to record all possible relationships, unless they are notable. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given political reality, the relations of Russian (and the former USSR) with all third-world countries is notable. Quite enough sources demonstrated. DGG (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considerably developed article. Well referenced. Notability is established.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't support delete nor keep as stand alone article but some of the info is really WP:NOT#NEWS. the trade is small even for a small economy of Seychelles. summarise and merge into Foreign relations of Seychelles. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign relations of Seychelles but not Foreign relations of Russia?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
because most of the relationship relates to and benefits the Seychelles. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a CopyVio based upon find of Mr.Z-Man. If you want to discuss what G11 is/is not, take it to WT:CSD---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total licensing[edit]

Total licensing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining speedy. Some would be comfortable with db-spam, but I'm more conservative with db-spam. No independent sources, no suggestion that they exist, and no significant hits at news.google.com/archivesearch. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you don't like db-spam then why close speedies? Why should we waste our time reviewing an article that you say has no sources, no suggestion that they exist, and no significant hits at Google news? Isn't that exactly what db-spam is for? If not, then what is it for? Drawn Some (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but there isn't a single, snappy answer to that question. I use A7 (notability) instead of G11 (advertising or promotionalism) whenever I think A7 fits. When A7 doesn't fit, G11 is for those articles where wiki-experience and real-life experience tells me that I'm wasting my time trying to improve the article. Some people say that I don't approve enough G11's, but those people haven't looked at my deletion log. The language in this article doesn't ring a bell with me as being an obvious sign of someone who's out to promote their own product and nothing else. A full discussion of what language does and doesn't ring that bell would take up a lot more time than we've got here, but I'll come back to that conversation some day. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    G11 is not for things that don't meet A7, G11 is for spam. This article is copied almost entirely from the company's website. What more does it need before you would consider it spam? A link to subscribe to their publications? Mr.Z-man 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had known that the article was written by a company employee and was a partial copyvio of their website, I would have db-spammed it. I can put more energy into investigating these things before bringing it to AfD, if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Dank, I honestly didn't mean to start a shoveling of abuse onto you. You did say that you investigated it and found that no resources were available. It doesn't have to have 12 exclamation points at the end of every sentence to be spam. Drawn Some (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball delete - spammy article with no references that should've been speedily deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete anyway, blatant spam. Dank is far too conservative with speedies, I've found. He does more speedy wonkery than I do. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile, over at WT:CSD, I'm getting criticized for being far too liberal with speedies. If the art of politics is making sure everyone is equally unhappy, I've succeeded. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would be happier if you ignore people who state on their user pages that they ignore notability guidelines because they think anything verifiable belongs in the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, as TPH alludes to, is that you're overly concerned with "does this meet the policy" rather than "does this improve the project" Mr.Z-man 18:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Delete, but not speedy. I'd have declined this one too as an advert, because although it was written by an employee of the company[60], it could also be seen as a semi-legit attempt at an article. To me, something that is fundamentally an advert is just that: "we're the best! buy our stuff! visit our website and be amazed!". However, a gsearch isn't turning up notability, so prod or AfD are very appropriate deletion methods here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Due to the question about CSD and this article, it was raised at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Declined_G11_at_AfD
    Thanks kindly for the note, I'll remember to add it next time there's a CSD discussion at AFD. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more I look at G11, the less impressed I am with it as a category. Speedy deletion criteria should be well defined and obvious. Unfortunately, G11 criteria are not well defined and there is no concrete way to know where the line is drawn between a good start and an article needing to be worked on. IMO this article needs to be deleted, but not via speedy deletion. Lack of sources is not a criteria for speedy deletion and this article does make a claim to significance/importance, thus avoiding A7 speedy deletion. As for blatant advertising? It has some advertisy pieces, but don't most articles on companies, especially when the article is first started? I would be answering this different if the article were saying "we are" or "our experts" but as it is worded in the third person, my inclination is to have it go through the AFD process, give the author a chance to save it, then delete it if no improvements come. Keeping an article around for a week, does the project no harm. Speedy deleting an article that can be saved, can be harmful.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sympathetic to these arguments, Spartacus, and we really need to nail down what is and isn't G11 (and that's not going to be easy or quick), but if we just get rid of G11, the reaction we're getting here will be multiplied by 100. There are articles that don't get sufficient attention even in 14 days at AfD; if we dump all the G11s here, people will be upset. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created by an employee with no references or rational for notability? Obvious answer. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete- This page is full of spammy language - "publishes three key publications", "The company is dedicated", "on a worldwide basis", "has seen wide success in the industry." - The article is overly positive, spends more time describing "achievements" than what the company actually does, doesn't even mention the history of the company, and has no sources. The article is copied almost verbatim from the company website - [61]. Mr.Z-man 18:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is a copy vio or near one from the company website, then I have no problem with so deleting the article speedily. The problem with reconciling G11 and A7 is that in order to fulfill the requirement for A7, you often have to write fluff such as "publishes three key publications" "on a worldwide basis" and "has seen wide success in the industry." (Note: I did not include "the company is dedicated.") Unfortunately, G11 is too vague...---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. They're either non-notable (A7) or a hoax (G3); either way, the fact that there are no Google hits shows something. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lounge fly[edit]

Lounge fly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources found. Never listed on Atlantic's website, no sources even saying they ever were on Atlantic. "Lounge Fly" + "David Brown" turns up bupkis, also tagged for G3 just in case. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goldline Research[edit]

Goldline Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not seeing the references to back this up as notable - in fact, they seem to charge for inclusion in their "best of" lists. http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/2008/05/22/seo-firms-beware-goldline-research/ SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If they are notorious enough for a reference criticizing their business methods, wouldn't that make them notable? Groomtech (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite possibly -- but I wouldn't accept the link I included above as a Reliable Source.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Additionally in regards to charging for services, it is my understanding that there is more than what is on the surface in regards to their business model. Best to verify with actual business before conclusions are drawn from singular and possibly antagonistic source. And regardless of business model, the fact that the company does exist and does publish in various magazines is verifiable and worthy of mention as a company, albeit a stub at this point. There is potential for growth to something on the scale of Forbes' own Wiki, in time. Thanks!KrugerK (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The company does exist" and "There is potential for growth" are fairly-specifically called out as WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great reason why is should be tagged for notability rather than be deleted. KrugerK (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? I don't think you understand what was explained. Those are not valid reasons for keeping. Therefore it should be deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, referring to another thread.71.6.73.35 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Above is mine KrugerK (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing notability requirements. DreamGuy (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Why have a notability tag even available if the result of an article's not being "notable" is deletion? Given the sources cited, I believe it is notable.
Above is mineKrugerK (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still have not had anyone chime in with respects to my question. KrugerK (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Information: Goldline Research provides a service to the consumer base (at no cost whatsoever) which consumers that have taken advantage of the information have said is very valuable and helpful. As far as notability goes, you will see that in the physical pages of one of the most notable publications that they produce their work in (Forbes) does not require that their page be produced in the "Marketplace" section of the magazine, nor is it marked as advertising. FYI, Goldline Research has made no visible or known claim that they are the magazine or that they are writing an editorial. This I feel are additional reasons to keep the page and simply tag it for notability.KrugerK (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Come On Now Altering other user submissions to Talk Page (without signing, no less!) is just bad form and poor Netiquette. Please be civil and polite. KrugerK (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You only get to not-vote once. Striking second !vote again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. Altering referenced section. Thanks for signing your entry and giving explanation. KrugerK (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The only secondary source ([62]) appears to just be a list of links with templated descriptions - and despite what it might say, it smells like an ad to me. The article itself is nothing more than the first paragraph stub and links to the company's websites (+ the forbescustom link) - the lists of published research don't belong in wikipedia. Keep in mind also that just because "Goldline Research publishes lists of professionals in Forbes, Fortune, Inc. and Texas Monthly as well as city and regional magazines." doesn't make it notable - what matters is if those publications write about Goldline Research itself. --bd_ (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would love to know why you believe the lists of published research don't belong, would be willing to remove if would improve chances of retention. This page was created not for advertising purposes, but to facilitate the dissemination of neutral information to the public to further inform them about Goldline Research, as there are those out there who want all the information they can get. If the page were brought back to the first paragraph and included the external links, would that make retaining the page and tagging it with notability something that might be possible? KrugerK (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total Screen Recorder[edit]

Total Screen Recorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Denied G11 - Spam article for an application Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - advertising, no indication of notability. Should've been speedily deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in Google News, regular Google search including term "review" finds no reviews from any reliable soruces, just a whole lot of mirror sites letting people download it for ad-delivery. DreamGuy (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete for more reasons than I care to count that all roll together into a mess. The article manages to be an advertisement, a how-to guide, violates notability quite well, is spam...yeah.. About the only thing this isn't is a hoax.Tyrenon (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

South american highway ant[edit]

The result was deleted as vandalism. -- Luk talk 16:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South american highway ant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

See the related discussion on Dr. Chad Jaeger. Suspected hoax. Fribbler (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete-Unable to find anything in Ghits, GNews, or Hölldobler and Wilson to support this hoax. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: References do not mention the subject at all. Google turns up zero for this "most researched insect." Unless the author cares to provide something other than a well-written, pretty article with bogus references, then {{db-vandal}}. --It's me...Sallicio! 16:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as vandalism. -- Luk talk 16:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Chad Jaeger[edit]

Dr. Chad Jaeger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Google search finds nothing. References don't mention the good professor, neither do the external links. No mention can be found either of the ant species he apparently discovered. Suspected Hoax. Fribbler (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete-Unable to find anything in Ghits, GNews, or Hölldobler and Wilson to support this hoax. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not only do they not mention the professor, they do not mention, "the most complex, and now most researched social insect of the twenty first century." Google turns up zero for this "most researched insect." Unless the author cares to provide something other than a well-written, pretty article with bogus references, then {{db-vandal}}.--It's me...Sallicio! 16:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The D'ark Night Film Festival[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The D'ark Night Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: The D'Ark Night Film Festival -- news, books, scholar

(Copied from failed repeat PROD by SoWhy (talk · contribs))

- CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article is about a planned year-long film festival "scheduled to run from the summer of 2008 to the summer of 2009". I can find lots of press-release announcements that it's going to happen, but no mention at all that it ever began, even from unreliable sources. Hairhorn (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see any sources suggesting that this ever got off the ground. No indication of notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - person who investigated it seems to have done a thorough job of it. DreamGuy (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never actually happened, not enough sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice and alow back when sources can be offered to show it actually ever took place. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Notability is not established without reliable sources. This doesn't indicate any. American Eagle (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of monarchs of Naples and Sicily[edit]

List of monarchs of Naples and Sicily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An IP editor (82.1.62.101) placed an AfD tag on this article on May 17th. Completing nomination, since the user provided a deletion reason on the talkpage: "This page appears to serve no useful purpose. In fact, it probably never did serve a useful purpose, as it merely conflates two distinct lists." Jamie☆S93 15:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, no own content. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless article; a disambiguation page where no ambiguity exists. Hairhorn (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: between 1738 and 1861 the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies had its capital at Naples and was generally known as the Kingom of Naples in English. This is what disambiguation articles are for. If you looked at the lists you would see they are not distict during that period--Grahame (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, there's ambiguity that I wasn't aware of. However, the page in question still does nothing to resolve it. Hairhorn (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Peerfectlu aprpropriqate list, full suitable for comfpehensvie encyopeoida..````DGG (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. While there is a valid topic that this article could be talking about (the kings of the unified kingdom), the page doesn't currently refer to that valid topic. I can't support keeping it until it actually makes sense to people not previously familiar with the topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, any necessary disambiguation can be handled by cross-references in the respective articles. older ≠ wiser 13:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessarily complicating matters, no ordinary Wikipedia page actually links to this page. PatGallacher (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a disambiguation page; no ambiguous articles to disambiguate. If needed for a list of the monarchs of Sicily/Naples between 1738 and 1861, then that list article should exist at this title; no disambiguation needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steppin: The Movie[edit]

Steppin: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

DELETE. I think WP:CRYSTAL applies here, this film is not yet notable. The supposed release date has expired. JBsupreme (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete without prejudice and allow return. Not crystal, having been released 8 days ago, May 19, 2009, with a quite notable cast. Being a new release, it is a reasonably safe presumption that this will get lots of coverage over the next few days and weeks. Sidenote, this film was both the directorial debut and final film of Michael Taliferro, who sadly died a few months after it was completed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT Wikipedia is WP:NOT a memorial. I will happily withdraw this nom if evidence of substantial third party coverage can be found. Just leave me a note on my talk page in case I miss it here. JBsupreme (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: I can find no sign that this movie was ever actually released. Sure, IMDB says that it came out on 19 May 2009—except that it's not on their list of May 2009 movie releases. Rotten Tomatoes says it came out in 2008, but received zero reviews. The-Numbers.com also says 2008, but says it's earned $0 in theaters. There are no Google News hits mentioning the movie's release. The movie's official website is up for sale. The newspaper coverage of the director's death describes the film as "featuring a cast of unknown young actors" (that link leads to a readable version of the article, unlike the one linked from the movie article), so not everyone thinks the cast is notable. But primarily, I think it's a speedy candidate because the article's plot summary is a direct lift from IMDB's plot summary. End result: {{db-g12}}. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a "speedy" as "never released" would serve for a film that shares its trailer and is being offered for sale on DVD[63]... and a straight to DVD release will not have any theatre revenues. That one souce was only to cite budget. And sourcing it as debut and last film of Michael Taliferro was not intended to have it be a memorial, as Taliferro has an article and has his own notability. However, his death might explain the delay between its 2006 completion and its 2009 release... what with estates going through probate and all that jegal stuff. "Debut" and "last film" were offered as perhaps showing notability throughs "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"... but that seems almost silly, as his career as a director and as an actor ended when he died. What may serve is to have the article userfied to the author and brought back in a few months without prejudice, as the DVD will be out and it will have reviews. As for where it screened on May 19... I'm still digging. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't say speedy because it was never released; I said speedy because it's a copyright violation. And is it a direct-to-DVD in August or a theatrical release in May? (note: it can't be both). Give that it's earned no money and garnered no reviews, I'm betting on direct-to-DVD, which means this whole article is CRYSTAL in the bargain. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. But for the newspaper article there, the combination of no coverage, mixed release dates, and so forth would lead me to suspect that there was a hoax going on here. As it stands, however, there is a complete lack of notability, no clear release date, no reviews, and so forth. That combined with the copy/paste allegation satisfy me on a speedy deletion.Tyrenon (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't believe that the film actually got released last week, as no reviews appear to have shown up, I can find no newspaper articles saying anything like "Steppin was not screened for critics in advance", nor were any box office results reported. Yes, a DVD release has been announced for August ... but then, the theatrical release was announced for this month, and that apparently didn't happen. Once the film actually achieves a verifiable release to the public which is discussed in reliable sources, the article can be reconsidered for inclusion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Allowing its return to be considered when it has comentary is quite reasonable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability of the film would be established by major awards, or significant critical commentary. None of this has been provide in the article, nor has it been found by any editors (myself included). - Whpq (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I vote delete as well. It's not a notable film at all. PÆonU (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • "Keep". at this this site [64] why would it have so much info on a movie that never existed, including DVD art from the movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by J19086 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Ylitalo[edit]

Julius Ylitalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An IP editor, 91.154.4.243, placed an AfD tag on this article (without completing the nom) on May 13th. Am bringing a discussion here, because the user provided a deletion rationale on the article's talkpage: "Considering for deletation. Being vandalized and this article is not even about an important person, sure he is a musician and producer and label director and whatnot but not necessarily in need for an article." No opinion at the moment, simply opening a discussion. Jamie☆S93 14:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Robert Culp Effect[edit]

The Robert Culp Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-noteworthy invented phrase. As of yesterday, there were three Google hits for "Robert Culp Effect": this entry, and two wikipedia sub-pages: a user page, and the list of current prods. (Today there are more, they seem to be the article authors who are upset about possible deletion.)

See the talk page (Talk:The Robert Culp Effect) where the original author says he made up the term. It's based on one (!) episode of Columbo.

Prod was contested; I don't know why, this looks like a pretty clear cut case of an invented expression that's used nowhere. Hairhorn (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:NFT and WP:NEO. It seems pretty clear to me that the OE just doesn't "get it". Wperdue (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for things someone makes up one day which lack significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. This is a neologism which has apparently not gained any notice outside the mind of its creator. Edison (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' - thought there was a Speedy for things like this. DreamGuy (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does the OE not "get it". Just becuase there is no reference for it online means it does not exist, pray tell how you gave credence to things before google? A lot of people on here taking easy route of google hits, who here has worked on researching things pre google or worked on a printed encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.217.118.50 (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • [Raises hand.] I've done both, and neither WP nor printed encyclopedias are in the business of helping people "build the use of this effect." Delete per WP:V and WP:MADEUP. Deor (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply My comments about not "getting it" refer to the conversation on the article's talk page. It is fairly simple. Wikipedia has standards for inclusion based upon the ability to reliably source the information so that it is verifiable and so that notability can be established. This entry has not met those standards. Therefore, it does not belong here. You are correct in that google is not the ultimate arbiter of what should be included. If you can provided printed references from books, magazines, or newspapers or media reports from television or radio regarding this neologism you are welcome to add them. I hope this was helpful in answering your question. Wperdue (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
  • Delete more trying to give neologisms legitimacy via Wikipedia. JuJube (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Deor has it right: there seems to be a confusion here between verifying that something is notable and helping make it notable. The Internet has loads of places that can help you with the latter. Hairhorn (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. It seems clear that the OE hasn't read WP:NFT which clearly explains the issue. For those that haven't gotten to the discussion page yet, the OE explicitly admits to having made up the term recently: "I made up the term therfore [sic] it is real" says the OE. Isn't there a speedy delete for this? BobKawanaka (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People check things as they are not notable to them hence coming on here for information, the fact its not notable but a fact should be a reason on its inclusion. A lot of people on here are confusing what wikipedia is and what people want from it, facts I would assume, this effect I see is a fact, notable or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.217.118.50 (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment To our OE IP that can't sign his edits: I think you'll find that it is you that has misunderstood what Wikipedia is for and what it is not. Saying "I made it up, and therefore it is true" doesn't make something worthy of an encyclopedia. I can only reiterate what other editors have said and suggest that you read WP:V, WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NEO and WP:NFT. I would also like to suggest, in the absence of further reliable sources, you abstain from further comment in this discussion; your point has been made perfectly clear multiple times, and you have not addressed any of the issues raised; if you do, fine edit the article to reflect that and people may reconsider. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very sorry I never signed edits, I have read the articles and I do not deny that it falls into some of the catagories or "rules", no I havent misunderstood what I think wikipedia is or many think and I do not think I need to refrain or be told as such either. Many issues I have said have failed to be addressed, Fact: the effect happens, it has no name unless somebody can show me otherwise, notable or not its still a fact.--Pay (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying something is a fact doesn't make it so. Your issues - all of them - have been addressed very specifically. If you indeed read the relevant guidelines you simply did not understand them. Hairhorn (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No issues have been addressed, you have pointed me to several guidelines for wikipedia that I may not agree with, that does not mean I do not understand. Can I ask what harm this article is doing, it is not contradicting any other mention if there is of this effect. If this is the only mention of such an effect which nobody can surely argue with happens then what is the problem, yes the name of the effect is being questioned, is the actual occurance being questioned? If the occurance is ok why not have a name for it?--Pay (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. I'm not sure which criteria for speedy this falls under, but it's a neologism and confessed as such by the author. I think we can put it out of its misery (and maybe call it the "Made It Up One Day effect").Tyrenon (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everything is made up one day is it not, again I kept getting showen a plethora of rules/critera that wikipedia entries must use to be accepted, these reliable sources certainly do not have the same strict criteria but if its in whats deemed reliable its ok? just becuase there is a reason in the rules of entry does not make it correct, again this is something that happens and as yet I have seen no other term for this. Its very easy to point out rules in wikipedia that you have. There is no justification I can see for some of the rules.--Pay (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article seems to have a lot of reasons for delete according to many, may I point out the entry "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon" Still in Wikipedia which is the exact same as what many on here are saying this is, its made up one day which seems not acceptable, yes this has far more notable occurances I agree but non the less it has many elements for deletion as this article according to some. So therefore stuff made up one day is in wikipedia and it appears to be a neologism also, so people asking to delete on thoose grounds wikipedia seems to contradict this, anyome suggesting delete as not notable certainly have a point. Some are getting carried away you could put some well knowen factual things through their paces with all the rules I have been showen. The article I refer to has been on here for some time.--Pay (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I understand that sometimes one can feel beaten up by wikipedia rules and terminology. Those rules govern what wikipedia is but let's dispense with them for the moment and try to be logical. You come up with something, you think it's noteworthy. Your brother comes up with his own thing that he finds interesting, so too does your son, mother, niece, nephew, the guy down the street, the guy down the street's brother, mother, etc. and pretty soon you have 250+ million English speaking people with a computer that add, everyday, one or two things that they think are important. Not only is that not what wikipedia is, that's not what anyone would want to ever bother reading. You might say, yes, but my stuff is interesting and unique and theirs isn't. That's your opinion. And of course, that is likely to be their opinion too about their posts. Who could possibly decide which of the billions of things posted are interesting enough. That's why there are specific rules, cited here so many times, that dictate the "hurdle" for inclusion. There are many reasons why your page deserves deletion not least of which is that it is not currently being used (despite your wanting it to be). The example you cite of "Baader-Meinhof" is clearly a candidate for deletion, except, if you search on the newspaper cited, people are actually using the term in that area. That page still may be a candidate for deletion, but it does have the advantage of verifiable use by more than a token number of people for more than a few months. Another thing to think about, wikipedia is what it says it is. That may seem "unfair" or "arbitrary" to you but it is so. Anyone that wants to host a free-for-all encylopedia with no articles deleted ever, could do so, they need only CPUs and bandwidth. BobKawanaka (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of this needs to be complicated. It's not notable and it's not verifiable. Saying "I made it up" isn't verification by any good standard. And no one's even argued that's it's notable, the only argument has been that notability shouldn't matter; that's not going to cut it. Hairhorn (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to BobKawanaka I would say this has been best answer so for to my article, many posters have stated that you cannot have something made up on a day in here yet Baader Meinhoff is still on, so you can as long as its used, so why show me criteria stating that and yet an article exists that does not meet a lot of the links I am to go and read? I have never said its important all I have said I have a term for something that is a real phenomenom that is all, as I said I dont know if there is something else to describe it but this was a phrase to use to describe it.--Pay (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was made up by the article creator. I'm sure this is a lot of research on this topic, but we've got an article for it already, namely Attention. Fences and windows (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic – Uruguay relations[edit]

Czech Republic – Uruguay relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable combination of these embassies, fails to having third-party sources to find this article. [65] ApprenticeFan talk contribs 14:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If only we could turn back time and prevent all of these articles from ever happening. What a waste of resources. JBsupreme (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of factoids or a mirror of databases. No evidence that this "bilateral relation" satisfies notability requirements. This information is better conveyed by 208 articles on the foreign relations of each sovereign country rather than 20,000+ "bilateral" combinations. Edison (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several of these have been closed recently as "Keep," apparently ignoring the "Delete" opinions. Note that the number of editors arguing for deletion or keeping matters less than the soundness of the arguments and that they are based on cited guidelines and policies. Edison (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am in fully agree with Edison above, in the end Delete and Keep have no merits if there are no actual arguments to correspond with them. Anyone can say delete because the article is, "it is completely random" and anyone can say keep because "it looks okay to me". But citing policy, and having well intentioned debates will help decide keep or delete. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe there is nothing notable in these relations. I confirmed that by searching Czech Republic for "Uruguay", and Uruguay for "Czech Republic" (absolutely nothing). There is no secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails Bilateral relations. Johnuniq (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No third-party coverage of the article topic to show notability. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason to think the information will be better conveyed in combination articles, which will each of them contain hundreds of sections and inherently duplicate each other. Rather, since there is no time limit for expansion, work on this one and the others. The guidelines for inclusion are what we want them to me: there isn't anybody else making the rules for us. It is probably better to keep them all than to have these time-consuming debates. DGG (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is that there is no information. If something notable about the Czech Republic ever impacts upon Uruguay, then the Uruguay article will have to cover it (something notable about Uruguay has to be mentioned in its article). Similarly, anything of importance to the Czech Republic has to be noted in its article. Therefore, a pointless "relations" article like this one has no prospect of development (until such time as the relations really do become notable – probably never). Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added links related to the history of foreign relations, business contracts between Czech Rep. (Czechoslovakia) and Uruguay etc. There is information sufficient for the existence of that article, in my opinion. I don't vote keep or delete, since I have no intention to work on it. Links already added in the article, check it, please. It's all in Czech, but relevant and from various sources.--Vejvančický (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The general notability guidelines are pretty clear: WP should not have an article on a topic if no reliable sources have covered the subject yet. This is clearly the case here: the article cites exactly zero reliable, secondary, independent sources; and searching around I've seen no evidence of non-trivial coverage of these countries' bilateral relations in such sources. I agree that wikipedia can make note of the fact that the Czech Republic has an embassy in Montevideo and an honorary consulate in Maldonado, and that Uruguay has an embassy in Prague. But a stand alone article is not the place, at least for now. These facts are best included in Foreign relations of the Czech Republic and Foreign relations of Uruguay. In fact the all information already is including in Foreign relations of Uruguay. Yilloslime TC 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did a search in Spanish [66]. complete lack of coverage of bilateral relations, only multilateral and of course football which they both have decent sides. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nom, non admin close. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M. Edward Whelan III[edit]

M. Edward Whelan III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article attempts to establish notability by association, but neither being a lawyer, analyst, legal clerk, the president of a questionable think tank nor having had an unknown job at the Department of Justice make him relevant for inclusion. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well what can I say, in the light of those sources I must withdraw my nomination. They should however be integrated into the article. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 LiveWorkPlay. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keenan Wellar[edit]

Keenan Wellar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Available in-depth sources all seem to be about the organization which he co-founded and acts as the spokesman for rather than about him. I can't find significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Drawn Some (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into LiveWorkPlay after removing all unsourced material. I agree completely with your points. Is a deletion discussion even necessary here? I would say to be bold: deleting unsourced assertions is always an acceptable bold thing to do. There would likely be little material left for a merge, warranting only a sentence or paragraph on the main page. And if there is controversy, I think it could be handled by a merge discussion. It would be hard for people to argue against a merge unless they came up with sources covering this person in depth, which I couldn't find. Cazort (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment, I think nothing would be lost by keeping a redirect in place--not only will it be useful if people type the name into the search box, but it may discourage re-creation of the page, esp. if people can see the history of the merge. That's why I'd prefer merge/redirect to deletion, even if all the material ends up being deleted. Cazort (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is the page gets no traffic so there is no way to build consensus. It might even get re-created. A merge and redirect outcome is fine with me. Drawn Some (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Club (eikaiwa)[edit]

American Club (eikaiwa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn company and school. Note: It is not related Tokyo American Club. Exleops (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) — Exleops (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Question Why is it not notable? Are all of the provided references invalid? Drawn Some (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote a rather long reply to Greg Tyler's post. When I saved the page I didn't see Drawn Some's comments on it. I hope she sees the comments I just posted. If not, please let me know. Thanks.Rayjameson (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, American Club (eikaiwa) is no relation to Tokyo American Club (which is not on the English wikipedia, but I found it on the Japanese wikipedia a couple hours ago). This is my previous post (I also noted it on Drawn Some's talk page: Rayjameson (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Dear Greg Tyler, You are right, I am a new user. So, that means I am doing my best to learn the ropes and navigate through wikipedia editing. I apologize in advance if I am inadvertently not following wikipedia protocol. That said, I was surprised to find that the American Club (eikaiwa) article was recommended for deletion. I spent a lot of time researching and referencing it. I have personal knowledge of the events described in the article, lived in Japan for several years, and have a big interest in Japan and its foreign relations. However, I sincerely believe my writing was neutral and well-referenced. (I also think it is an interesting story, but that's not for me to decide.) I could understand an edit, even a heavy edit, but as I said I was surprised to find it recommended for deletion. But if that's the consensus, then so be it. If I have stumbled in the learning process I'm going through in learning to edit/write on wikipedia, the best I can hope for is that I get better in the process. I hope I have satisfied you. If not, let me know. Thank you for taking the time to debate the article. It's helping me to learn. Sincerely, RayjamesonRayjameson (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Rayjameson (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Which notability criterion does it fail to meet? Fg2 (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears notable due to available non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Other issues can be dealt with outside of AfD. Drawn Some (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, similar naming is irrelevant to notability. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs some cleanup, but the extensive references seem to be enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Unless the nominator has a specific argument to make otherwise, I see no reason not to keep it. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AFD nominator fails to indicate what criteria is not met. Reports of the company in Japanese Language newspapers are used as references as well as primary references.Statisticalregression (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ActiveModeler Avantage[edit]

ActiveModeler Avantage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable piece of software, no claims of notability are made. The article was created by someone who appears to have a strong COI. The references may well make no mention of this specific software. I removed the two that I could check. I can't find any mentions on google which suggest notability either. Smartse (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first sight, I doubt you are right about notability. There is a German and Turkish article on this subject. The Germans are normally pretty secure about these kind of things. I notioced the German article also related to a German community, see here. But I will look into this some more. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At second sight, I can't seem to find any reliable sources. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I checked the German copy too - it was created after this one was and seems to be a carbon copy of it. The community is also inactive by the looks of it - not that that really matters. Smartse (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess you are right. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notable, and is not simply a dic-def based on the "Origin theories" and "Notable examples" sections. Malinaccier (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eating crow[edit]

Eating crow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Flagrant violation of WP:DICT, the article is about the term, not any kind of encyclopedic concept. Transwikied to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eat_crow. As transwiki is complete, and there is no encyclopedic content to this article, it should be deleted, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DICT#Dealing_with_mis-placed_dictionaric_articles. Mintrick (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Explaining the metaphors and histories that underlie traditional idioms like this makes for an encyclopedia entry. The information contained in this article goes well beyond a mere restatement of the words of the article title, because the relationship with the actual meaning is not obvious. Part of a large series, see Category:English idioms. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A dictionary article is about "the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.". All the article does is explain the origin of the phrase, its variations, and etymology. That is straight-up dictionary content. Give me one example of how this article is encyclopedic. Your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is spurious.Mintrick (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mintrick believes "idioms probably don't belong on Wikipedia" and to his credit has been editing accordingly by trans-wiking content to Wiktionary (I hope he continues). However, WP:DICT does not say idiom's are not allowed. In fact it says "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary article." The Eating crow article talks about more than just eating crow, but the concept of 'being wrong and eating' in general, which includes other idioms like eating one's heart out, eating one's shoe, eating dirt, etc.. which can be expanded upon. Also, the section on Rudyard Kipling is encyclopedic content that would be lost if the article is deleted - Kiplings short story centers around the concept of being wrong and eating, it's relevant and notable due to the concepts central place in the story (not just a random example), the early usage of "eating crow" (conceptually and directly), and Kiplings place as a canonical author (influence). Green Cardamom (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that because it is policy. Mintrick (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even though you personally believe "idioms probably don't belong on Wikipedia", you have not demonstrated the article "violates policy" because there is nothing in WP:DICT that explicitly prohibits idiom articles. The policy is more open ended, WP:DICT says One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary article, in other words, we give articles a good faith opportunity to mature into full fledged encyclopedia articles without cutting them off when they are young and developing. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kipling's use of this idiomatic expression does not make the article any more encyclopedic. Many dictionaries make a point of including quotations showing uses of words or idioms by famous authors. --macrakis (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess that's a matter of opinion because I think it does make it more encyclopedic. Dictionaries don't go into conceptual symbolism in literature, rather just straight examples of usage. Without an encyclopedia article, there would be no place for discussion of Kipling's story. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Conceptual symbolism"? Why is it insufficient to include the Kipling quote in the Wiktionary entry? --macrakis (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep informative, encyclopaedic. Why would anyone want to delete this? --Moloch09 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it violates policy? Because it belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia? Mintrick (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete Yes, it is informative, but no, it is not encyclopedic. It is about a particular idiomatic phrase. Should we also have articles about "kick the bucket" (currently mentioned, appropriately, in the euphemism article), "throw up" (as a phrase separate from vomit), "eat one's pride", etc.? --macrakis (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As required by WP:DICDEF, since it is a dictionary definition which has been transwikied to Wiktionary already. Edison (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments above; if this page is not encyclopedic enough, I think the appropriate response is to make it more encyclopedic. There does not seem to be a clear consensus as to whether the current page is enyclopedic or just dictionary material (and I'm not sure how I feel about that), but that's not really what the discussion needs to focus on. People arguing to delete have not presented a tight argument that this page could not be made encyclopedic. This would be necessary in my eyes, to justify deletion. Cazort (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment I think it would be appropriate to add discussion about how crow actually tastes to this article. This source: [70] says that crow tastes similar to Mallard duck...which is generally considered fairly tasty. Here's a second source saying it tastes like Mallard: [71]. This topic is frequently discussed in the context of crow hunting: [72], [73]. Cazort (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming the source is serious, the taste of crow goes under the crow article. An article about "eating crow" (the expression) is not the same as Crow (food), which is probably not worth separating from crow. --macrakis (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read the articles, some make references to the expression, pointing out the irony in the fact that crow actually tastes pretty good. That alone is interesting, and relates as directly to the expression "eating crow" as it does to the main topic. I think the fact belongs both places. Putting the discussion of taste on the crow article misses the irony here. (which is verifiable). Cazort (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't see what is or could become encyclopedic here. --macrakis (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "People arguing to delete have not presented a tight argument that this page could not be made encyclopedic.", I think the burden of proof is on those who think it could be made encyclopedic. --macrakis (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I don't object to keeping the page as-is. However, the fact that there is additional content (i.e. commentary about the irony that crow tastes like mallard and is generally agreed to taste pretty good), and the sentence relating this to other eating-related idioms, both strike me as encyclopedic content. Cazort (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is about the cultural significance, and it's sufficiently encyclopedic even now. DGG (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently notable. There's not nearly enough of this on Wikipedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USC Limited[edit]

USC Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very short article, no assertion of notability. Speedy declined, prod removed. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched for sources and was unable to find anything. "USC Limited" searches mostly come up with hits unrelated to this company. I barely find evidence that this company even exists: [74]. Cazort (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rayjameson (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)I wrote this a few hours ago, but don't know if anyone read it. (I may have inadvertently put the post in the wrong place). Here's what I had to say: Rayjameson (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I have read the message regarding the possibility of speedy deletion of the USC Limited article. I realize that though I have noted the company's website as a reference, I have not noted any other sources, such as newspaper articles. I am certain there is some information published on USC Limited somewhere, and will try to find other sources (when I have time). The USC Limited website is in Japanese, so, for a person unable to read Japanese, it may be difficult to understand the significance of the company in Japanese-American relations. However, if one does read the website, one would understand that USC Limited is significant in that it is a company that has imported products for several decades from the US, despite the fact that the US has had a significant trade deficit with Japan for many years. There has been much emotional political debate concerning trade relations between Japan and the US. USC Limited is an anomaly in that it is a Japanese trading company that relies on imports from the US (rather than exporting to the US) for its well-being. If you desire to delete the page, that is OK for now, but I definitely plan to work on it some more, find more references (if possible), and, if need be, point to the significance of having the names of the presidents of the company noted. (Though I could live with not having them noted.) In any case, the first president and founder of the company is deceased. The current president of the company has his name (and photo) prominently noted on the company website(http://www.usccom.co.jp/aisatu/aisatu.html) - which is a public document, accessible to anyone. In closing, let me thank you for your comments and concern. Your input is very helpful in editing wikipedia.Rayjameson (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only some businesses are notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Generally, what this means is, not only that the existence of the business, and the statements about it in the article, are verifiable. It also requires that the article on the business be verified by independent, edited reliable sources. The way these policies relate specifically to businesses has been set forth in a specific notability guideline that relates to them.

    Under these policies and guidelines, a company's own website is not in itself enough; it is published by the company itself, and therefore not independent. Local newspaper coverage generally does not qualify, either: the actions of employers may be locally newsworthy, but this does not necessarily translate into sufficient notice in the wider world. Trade publications may not be enough, either; many reproduce press releases (not independent) with minimal editing or verification; and some of them, like local newspapers, do not reach a wide readership.

    These are the sorts of things that would need to be added in order to make an article about this business meet the notability guideline for businesses. You are of course free to continue to edit the article to add these things to it, if they are in fact available. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As requested I am replying here. I certainly do not object to Japanese language sources (I've occasionally argued to keep articles on the basis of foreign-language sources when ones in English are not available). But I don't know how to search for Japanese articles, nor do I know any Japanese. I do know, however, that the company page is not usable to argue notability as it is not independent of the company. (Read WP:N for clarification.) Smerdis of Tlön explained this better than I could. I welcome more sources but we need to find independent, reliable sources if we are going to keep this article. Cazort (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Smerdis of Tlön and Cazort for your input. I can obtain business licenses/registrations through Tokyo govt. for this company, also poss. to access other documents, but all this will take time/money. I may have to give up on this one and pick it up later. I'd still like to write an article on USC Limited and think it would be considered notable after I do. Once again, thanks. Sincerely,Rayjameson (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Business licenses/registrations would prove existence of the company (existence has not been questioned), but not notability. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks...but business registration would probably note company's assets. If co. assets are large, does that help constitute notability? Also, company has been involved in legal action, legal records should be available. Depending on legal action, I assume it might constitute notability. Thanks for help you've given this newbee. Sincerely, 61.192.74.228 (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Rayjameson (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the originator of this article I guess I hafta acknowledge the prospect of this article staying looks pretty grim. As a new user, I want to say that, thanks to the experienced users/administrators who have given their input on this article I have learned. Please do not feel your time/energy was wasted. I don't have easy access to documents now, that'd verify possible notability, but I thought this co. wud b notable cuz 1: The company imports a lg. amt. of products fm. US and Europe. This is in contrast to most Japa. trading co's. that export to US and Europe (thus the lg. trade deficit for EC countries and US w/Japan). 2: The founder and long-time president of co. (till his death) was a Japanese-American who'd been interned during WWII. After his internment ended he successfully lobbied US govt. to allow loans to former internees so they cud reassimilate back into society....(Also, my apologies for neglecting to sign my previous post of 05:41, 29 May 2009) Rayjameson (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicado[edit]

Nicado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I found this article through DumbBOT as an incomplete listing. Filing for them, to complete it. No opinion on article. Syn 13:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was made by an unregistered user who posted the following on the talk page "This article made for commercial purpose of Nicado. Please remove this article. Because I tried to use this website. But it doesnt have any option to search email adress as a search engine. It will search only the person who registered in there.--Jigesh (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)"

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Petruzziello[edit]

Jimmy Petruzziello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

this is a biographical page made by a non-notable therapist. The article is purely self-promoting links to the authors website to increase his business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanroyle (talk • contribs) 12:52, May 26, 2009

  • Comment - Bad faith nomination (nominator's history shows several attempts to hijack the external links, and placement of WP:SOAPBOX wafflings). I will attempt to restore the original links an examine them for WP:N. They seem to be mostly local newspapers, however. Marasmusine (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - the most substantial source, the Manchester Evening News, seems to be little more than a press release. The remainder are small articles in local newspapers. Marasmusine (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The Machester Evening News article is substantial, but I agree, it seems to be a press release. Thoughts? How reliable is that paper considered to be? How about this source? [75]. Overall there is some coverage: [76] but not much. This article strikes me as highly borderline as far as notability is concerned. I'm leaning towards a delete but I'd prefer to hear more perspectives before this is closed. Cazort (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only coverage is either from WP:RS-failing sites or trivial/press release reprints. Would also think that true notability for a Wikipedia article would require more than just local newspaper coverage from the area in question... local semi-notability is not encyclopedia notability. DreamGuy (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't seem notable to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This person has also featured on several national newspapers all over the world see links including national tv and national news papers
http://excelwithnlp.com/media.html
MEN - "Trainer To The Stars" & (Front Cover)
Campus Stars Get Second Chance To Impress
Colin Kazim Richards
"Its Not All Doom & Gloom"
New Year - New You
Fit For Football
Motivate clients with NLP
College Offers Shot At The Big Time
Lancashire Evening Post feature
Jimmy's Goal
"Generation Xpat" - Sunday telegraph Sydney Australia
Australian & British Soccer Weekly interview with Jimmy Petruzzi
"Fitness Training For Soccer" - Peak Performance
"Jim Shares Soccer Skills" - Rochdale Observer
"NLP and Blackburn Rovers F.C" - The Guardian Newspaper
The Australian and British Soccer interview with Jimmy Petruzzi
"Jim keeps ball rolling" - Australian and British Soccer interview
"Pederson and NLP" - The Guardian
Bury FC (1) (2) (3)
Ivory Coast Football Team
Mind Coach
Half Time Psychology
Personal Trainer
Sideline Warrior
Football Academy
World Cup (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.74.131 (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also written articles for world wide publications such as peak perfomance
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/football-coaching-half-time-psychology
http://www.pponline.co.uk/blog/pre-season-training-football-jimmy-petruzzi-40738
http://blogs.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/worldcup/2006/06/a_last_word_from_the_angola_ca.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIjDAMFJz_s
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.74.131 (talk • contribs) 21:44, May 26, 2009

smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.74.146 (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please do not delete this page as the person attempting to put the deletion in is a vandalist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.75.146 (talk • contribs) 22:16, May 27, 2009

other articles to support page
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/football-coaching-half-time-psychology
http://www.pponline.co.uk/blog/pre-season-training-football-jimmy-petruzzi-40738
http://blogs.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/worldcup/2006/06/a_last_word_from_the_angola_ca.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.75.146 (talk • contribs) 22:18, May 27, 2009

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/football-coaching-half-time-psychology
http://www.pponline.co.uk/blog/pre-season-training-football-jimmy-petruzzi-40738
http://blogs.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/worldcup/2006/06/a_last_word_from_the_angola_ca.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersuperduper (talk • contribs) 22:23, May 27, 2009

do not delete this page please this person has featured in national press, is a radio presenter do not delete
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/football-coaching-half-time-psychology
http://www.pponline.co.uk/blog/pre-season-training-football-jimmy-petruzzi-40738
http://blogs.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/worldcup/2006/06/a_last_word_from_the_angola_ca.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIjDAMFJz_s


http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/football-coaching-half-time-psychology
http://www.pponline.co.uk/blog/pre-season-training-football-jimmy-petruzzi-40738
http://blogs.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/worldcup/2006/06/a_last_word_from_the_angola_ca.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIjDAMFJz_s

http://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/1131301.africa_trip_on_cards_for_jim/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersuperduper07 (talk • contribs) 23:19, May 27, 2009

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban assistance to the FSLN[edit]

Cuban assistance to the FSLN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No references for the core of the article. Seemingly no evidence to back up that this happened. There are two references in the article, pertaining to incidents, but none of them support the core premise the article is discussing. Canterbury Tail talk 12:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Material which is not a paean to Cuba is already fully covered in salient articles. CFork of Sandinista (also unreferenced in that article). And FSLN In fact, this article has absolutely nothing of substance which was not already in other articles, and just as unreferenced. Using multiple articles for the same unreferenced material is quite apt to lead to deletion of the worst ones. Collect (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this article after reading: "This article may be too long to comfortably read and navigate. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject." at the top of the Sandinista National Liberation Front article. So that's what I did. I have now added core references "to back up that this happened", as per CT's complaint. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And why when it was already in several articles did it need yet one more? Collect (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only article I saw this material in was FSLN, where I was asked to split "content into sub-articles" because of the length of the article. This is what I have done; I saw a section called "Cuban assistance to the FSLN", I moved its content to a new article and condensed the original text. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems okay to me. I only AfDed it due to the lack of references to support whether it happpened(s) or not. Those have been provided so my issue with the article is fine. Canterbury Tail talk 15:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Escala (group). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tasya Hodges[edit]

Tasya Hodges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Musician notable only for her participation in Escala which already has a sufficient article. In fact, the vast majority of this article is a direct copy of the Escala article. Prod denied (by anon. IP). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, notability confirmed through reliable source coverage. Jamie☆S93 11:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Tree (record label)[edit]

Jade Tree (record label) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A record company that fails to establish notability per WP:CORP with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Notability and references tags removed with no improvement to article.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 11:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Looking at the label's roster, most of the bands are bluelinked, and several are big names within their own particular genres. Obviously, notability is not inherited but that's usually a good indication (it also fits in with WP:MUSIC's definition of an important indie label; "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable"). A look on Google Books puls up a few hits as well. For instance, the first is this one; there's no preview so I can't tell how trivial the mention is, but it looks like a fairly academic text. There's also MaximumRocknRoll and several others in there (search here). I'd be willing to bet there are plenty more out there as well. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Article about the label from The Boston Phoenix here, interview with the founder in Detour Magazine here, another here, and here... I could go on, but these are all from the two pages of a Google search. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 14:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a perfectly notable indie rock label. These seem to get targeted for AfDs once in a while because their acts don't "chart". But that's the nature of small indie labels. Hairhorn (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable label with a history of notable artists & releases. The book Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo devotes most a chapter to this label and gives an account of its history & significance. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noemi Letizia[edit]

Noemi Letizia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Fails WP:BLP1E among others. Asserting that someone was "made famous for receiving a gold necklace" borders on the ludicrous. The article is poorly sourced, and the subject's father says he intends to sue what sources there are for libel (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090526/twl-will-berlusconi-answer-teen-scandal-3fd0ae9.html) Harry the Dog WOOF 11:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree, this article has no place in an encyclopedia. -[[Ryan]] (Main Menu) (Language Selection) 13:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Silly entry. This topic is worth no more than a sentence at Veronica Lario or Silvio Berlusconi or somewhere... Hairhorn (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this deserves an entry in Berlusconi's article. As to the libel suit, if that goes somewhere and Berlusconi gets embroiled, then this might be worthy of an article, but those are big "ifs" which have not yet transpired.Tyrenon (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not really notable. Salvageable content could be moved to Silvio Berlusconi if it satisfies WP:WEIGHT. Easy on the eye! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable gossip. Not notable for an encyclopedia. Of course, if Silvio marries her, has children by her, then divorces her, we can revisit notability at that time. Weak support for including a mention of her in the Silvio Berlusconi article, but frankly, that guy sleeps around so much we could fill an entire encyclopedia solely with his individual conquests. --Quartermaster (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if the affair will have heavy consequences she won't be notable, on it.wiki we speedly deleted the article four times. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was speedy deleted just because they feared it could in fact survive a votation: Wikipedia it pages to delete: "Immediata e non semplificata, perché potrebbe anche finire a votazione. --Salvo da Palermo" ("Speedy, not simplified, because it could be voted"). --ElfQrin (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you didn't read anything about the deletions we made: you're wrong, here there's a lot of consensus for deletion. In thetalk page only two users (you and Felisopus) and a troll (a recidive one, already banned) asked for creating again the page. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is 4 days later then the speed deletion. --Beechs (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nothing like Monica Lewinsky. In that case there was proven misconduct with an employee. In this case, there is gossip (denied) about a family friend. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ugh. Not notable. Good lord. لennavecia 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She's just a silly girl who's one of Silvio Berlusconi's flings. Non-notable - unless it is revealed she's not a fling but that she is actually his love child, in which case the article will have to be re-introduced and re-written. Tovojolo (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's face it, if Obama was in Silvio's position, this would have been a featured article by now. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is notable and of current importance. Maybe the story will disappear soon (it's mentioned rarely on Italian TV but that's probably because Berlusconi owns or controls most of the media) and if so it can be deleted but for now it seems importance and relevent. I'm sure someone will discount this comment because I'm not a logged in user but it doesn't matter anyway because Wikipedia is now controlled by over-zealous admins so there's never a democratic vote (or even a normal discussion) anymore.--217.203.178.11 (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)— 217.203.178.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment this is exactly backwards — we don't write articles on people when they're in the news, then delete them when they "stop being relevant". That's newsworthiness, not notability. We write articles only on topics that will predictably be of future as well as current interest. --Trovatore (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep She is at the center of an international scandal which involved the image of the italian prime minister and that of his country too. --Felisopus (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC) (small note: more than half million hits in only two weeks)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. --82.53.108.79 (talk) 21:36, 28 May — 82.53.108.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP This is Wikipedia's chance to show it's not open to political meddling. The page has been deleted from Italian Wikipedia and should have been kept there. It should also be kept here. This is a present political issue and if anything it should be expanded. Removing it goes against all the principles of democracy by which Wikipedia was founded. If Italy's internal media can't be free at least let the internet remain free. KEEP, KEEP, KEEP, KEEP, KEEP!!!!220.238.68.173 (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC) — 220.238.68.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    I belong politically to the left (and pay attention to this affair is political mistake), I live in Italy and italian media are dedicating too much time to this affaire, wiki must have no political scopes so the keeping of this page "for web freedom" is quite wrong. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis is shame. --87.15.38.150 (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)— 87.15.38.150 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Personality of high current relevance, appearing in quality media all across Europe. --Alib (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. An she does pass the notability requirements.--Judo112 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BLP1E says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." (Emphasis mine.) That doesn't seem to be the case here. Even if her alleged affair with Berlusconi is never proven, the allegation in itself has sparked what's expected to be one of the most expensive divorces in history. Plus, she's a professional model. Not exactly the kind of person that keeps a low profile even if they're not involved in any sort of scandal. — Red XIV (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I should point out that her father's libel suit makes her more notable over the allegations, not less. — Red XIV (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable and notingh like Monica Lewinsky. --87.13.167.126 (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)— 87.13.167.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete non notable. --82.55.162.50 (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)— 82.55.162.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment She is certainly likely to remain low profile. Monica Lewinsky she ain't. This allegation alone didn't spark the divorce. His wife has commented previously on his infidelities, and she has expressed political disagreements. If she goes on to do something notable, she should have an article, but for now mention of her should be confined to the BLPs of the relevant people. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would appear a lot of the deletes are do-not-like votes. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep very notable - there was an article in our local newspaper only today with her picture. This is coverage across the world and not just on one occasion. This means there is multiple independent sources covering her. Satisfying the WP:N criteria. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about the WP:BLP issues? Most of the allegations made in this article have been strongly denied. The article as it stands is poorly sourced gossip. I am sorry, but no one is "notable for receiving a gold necklace". If that is her only claim to notability, as the article asserts, the article must go. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is still shoddy, but there is plenty of relevance that can be added. The Berlusconi article is already over-long and sub-articles are required. The story is still developing - Berlusconi has gone to the courts to prevent publication of photos of the party at which Letizia was allegedly a guest. Maybe in a week a proper decision can be made. Pontificake (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Shoddy" BLPs need to be improved immediately or deleted. Since nothing more can be added to this article beyond speculation, rumour and gossip, it should be deleted until such time as a substantial and factual article can be created. In the meantime, mention of the controversy belongs in Berlusconi's artice. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic is interesting to the public, potentially politically important, and we presumably can produce adequate sources. Something which is ostensibly causing the divorce of a major political figure is noteworthy almost by definition. OP says "the subject's father says he intends to sue what sources there are for libel" - this actually makes the subject more noteworthy. Article could stand to be improved, but presumably can be. Let's hold off on the delete for now and look for progress or lack thereof in another few months. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC) -- Added: Someone seems to have added the "del" (strikeout) tag to my vote for me. DON'T DO THAT, and I have reverted it back to"Keep". Although I have mentioned below some factors which could be taken to argue against "Keep", my vote is still "Keep", for the reasons I've already given. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE Spam & gossip. --82.53.107.111 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)— 82.53.107.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment The problem is that if the article is libelous, Wikipedia is in line to be sued as well if the article is not quickly deleted. It is one thing to mention the controversy in Berlusconi's article. It is quite another to create an article about a person involved in that controversy, who is not otherwise notable, repeating insinuations and gossip that cannot be shown to be factual. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment': Wikipedia:Libel for info, though it is very brief. Obviously enough, this article needs to adhere to WP:BLP. Everything that's not properly cited can be removed immediately. However, IMHO, whatever is cited should stay, and IMHO we should be able to assemble enough properly cited material to have an adequate article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have no idea what the legal situation is if an Italian citizen sues a USA-based nonprofit for libel over an article that quotes mainstream sources. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Keep. I think the Monica L. reference above is just. Neither has yet proved herself to be interesting in herself, but both have played notable parts in big (or at least moderately big) stories. A reader in twenty (or two hundred) years time who comes across a reference to her in an old play will think very well of Wikipedia if they find a brief description of her. [If the deletion motion were that Wikipedia should avoid mention of any living person I might reverse my vote.] Ian Spackman (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Be very careful comparing Noemi Letizia with Lewinsky. These kinds of comparison are precisely why this article needs to be deleted. There is simply no evidence of any sexual impropriety between Letizia and Berlusconi and to suggest so is libelous. If it is later shown that there was impropriety, then the article can be re-created. For now, Noemi Letizia can redirect to the appropriate section in the Berlusconi article so those looking for information on the story based on her name will find it. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me it is entirely unimportant whether either of them had sexual relations with anyone. Why would that be of interest to me? My comparison is simply that they are are/were unknown young women who had notability thrust upon them by the actions of important older politicians. Both will be footnotes, at least, in the history books to come and our value as encyclopaedists will be increased by helping future historians write those footnotes.
  • Yes, it is unimportant in one sense. But when you say the name Monica Lewinsky, what is the first image that comes to most people's minds? Fellatio in the Oval Office? The whole reason ML is notable is because of the sexual indiscretions. NL has denied any such indiscretions, going so far as to say she is a virgin. So comparisons between ML and NL in terms of their relationships with the powerful men involved are entirely inappropriate at this stage. It leaves Wikipedia open to the legal pursuits that are being threatened. Do you really think that the actions of the two politicians (one taking sexual advantage of an employee, the other hosting a birthday party for a young woman and giving her a present) are in any way comparable? All I am saying is be very careful about drawing these comparisons as the only basis for keeping this article. The mention of her will be just as easily found by historians in Berlusconi's article, with a redirect from here.. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. Its just a news story, thats all, coppied from a single source allmost word for word. Quode (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a transient scandal. If the story winds up bringing down Berlusconi's government, then she might be as notable as Monica (well, no, probably not, but at least in the same ballpark), and the article could be recreated. But there will be time for that. Wikipedia is not a news outlet, and hopefully especially not a scandal sheet. --Trovatore (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --79.2.0.235 (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)— 79.2.0.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. This is NOT a transient scandal, this is NOT spam! Noemi Letizia is a personality of high current relevance, appearing in quality media all across Europe. Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's exactly the problem — current relevance. We don't care about current relevance. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. From a sourcing point of view, news articles are not good sources, and as far as I know there are hardly any other sources that mention her. --Trovatore (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • News articles aren't good sources? That's a shame since thousands and thousands of Wikipedia articles use news articles as sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say they weren't allowable sources. I said they weren't good sources. They're OK as a backup. But if there aren't any other sources on a topic, there's a good chance the topic isn't notable. --Trovatore (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we are going to stop trusting the BBC and the New York Times as sources, we might as well just stop creating new articles unless someone has already written a book. I would also point out that BLP problems or other things that can be cleaned up are reasons to improve the article and are not reasons to delete an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's not about "trusting" them. It's about the distinction between momentary newsworthiness and encyclopedic notability. The Silvio Berlusconi article is a particularly embarrassing example of what happens when editors throw in every silly People-magazine style minor outrage the man committed in the week preceding. This article seems to be an outgrowth of the culture in that article. --Trovatore (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP issues must be addressed immediately. This article has barely been improved since its creation. The reason for that is that based on what we know, it is impossible to improve it. If we were to remove everything that was a BLP problem in this article there would be nothing left, certainly nothing to assert notability. Reported gossip and innuendo is still gossip and innuendo. Just because the BBC and others choose to report what is happening does not mean that this article should be kept. There is a big difference between reporting on an event (a crisis, a scandal etc.) as the BBC etc. are doing and spinning that off into a poorly sourced article on individuals. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is also a good point, and it's worth noting that, under US libel law, we are probably safe from any suits by Berlusconi, under the American "public figure" doctrine. It is not technically impossible for him to win a suit in a US court, but it would be very difficult. For Ms. Letizia things are rather different. Both from a point of view of legal safety, and just common decency, we have to be especially careful what we say about her. --Trovatore (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I completely agree that BLP issues are urgent, and should be fixed as soon as possible, and I have left a notice [77] at WP:BLPN regarding this article. I just don't think it's a valid reason to delete an article with multiple very reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was interested who she was, so I came to wikipedia. The scandal is big enough to grant her entry here, plenty of reliable sources talk about her. Enegrea (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. WP:BLP1E, non notable. Yet another sicking little article drummed up by those who believe that Wikipedia should be gutter press. Physchim62 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An incredible example of WP as National Enquirer competitor, and violating BLP standards both as to nature and sourcing of claims. I am an extrordinarily firm believer that BLPs must not be tabloid-like, and I would suggest that anyone reading this would read the Weekly World News each week :( . Collect (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statements in the article are sourced. This issue keeps getting brought up, but I'm not sure anyone has cited a specific example of a blp violation in this article. Sources are internationally known and respected news organs like the Guardian and the NY Times. If there is a problem, let's fix it, but crying out "BLP violation" without specifying where is not very helpful. (Just as an aside, the Weekly World News is no longer being published) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statements like the very opening sentence: "Noemi Letizia is an 18 year old Italian woman, who has become the center of controversy..." Is she really? The controversy surely surrounds Berlusconi, and she is a player in it. To say that she is "the center of controversy" implies that she may have done something wrong. There is no evidence at present that she (or indeed Berluscon in this instance) has done anything wrong. And if she is not the center of the controversy, she is no notable. She can and should be mentioned in a discussion of the controversy, which should take place in Berlusconi's article, or a separate article on the controversy itself if it becomes important enough for that. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'll grant that you may have a point about her not being the "center" and I have edited the article to remove that characterization. However, I do not grant that if she is not the absolute center of the controversy, she is not notable. Lynndie_England and Linda Tripp were both bit players in political controversies and both have their own articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFF. The point is that Wikipedia does not have the same protection under US libel laws with Letizia as it does with Berlusconi. That means we have to be very careful what we say and how we characterise her, implicitly as well as explicitly. Just because otherwise reliable sources are reproducing what others are saying doesn't mean we should include it. If the BBC were to say. "According to the National Enquirer..." would we consider that reliable? Harry the Dog WOOF 06:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irrelevant. --Alfie (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very relevant; statements sourced; one of the major causes of Veronica Lario's decision to file for divorce; the case that first opened italian media's eyes over the sexual misconduct of italian PM as a civil servant: naked Mirek Topolánek has been photographed with naked girls in Berlusconi's harem, in Berlusconi's villa. So, is this what they use to do during meetings? Well, that's relevant. Nightbit (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But there is no evidence that Letizia played any part in any of this. This is precisely why this article is a BLP violation. Let's discussed sourced instances of Berlusconi's indiscretions by all means, in his own article and Lario's. If Letzizia is mentioned there, that's one thing, but to make her the center of these events, when she is no such thing and there is no evidence that she herself did anything wrong is a violation of WP:BLP. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you claim that there is no evidence she played any part in the events described in an article that is about her? If Silvio came to her birthday party (which I don't believe has been disputed anywhere) then she "played a part." The exact nature of her role is not defined in the article because it is not clearly defined by the sources, and that is as it should be, but clearly she is part and parcel of this incident. What else would you have us believe his soon-to-be-ex-wife was referring to in her statement regarding their divorce when she said that she "cannot remain with a man who consorts with minors" Beeblebrox (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I should have been more specific. It is precisely when we start talking about hareems etc. that we are in trouble. What i meant was that there is no evidence that Letizia has been involved in anything improper with Berlusconi, that any "indiscretions" have taken place. The whole premise of this article is that something improper has happened (in which case Letizia might be notable as an individual). Berlusconi "consorting with minors" would be his impropriety (if indeed he dd anything improper with them), not the minors'. There is no evidence that Letizia has been engaged in anything improper, much less been a member of any hareem; to even suggest or imply that is libelous. It is tittilating, but it's not encyclopaedic. Harry the Dog WOOF 06:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good reasons to keep an eye on the article, and to edit to make sure it accurately reflects what is in the sources, but not good reasons to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are arguing that it's OK for Wikipedia to retain libelous content? According to WP:BLP it is not. And right now, the entire premise of this article (that Letizia has somehow engaged in improper behaviour) is libelous. Therefore the article should be deleted. If evidence emerges that she has engaged in improper behaviour, the article can be recreated. In the mean time, discussions of Berlusconi's improprieties can take place in the article about him. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest I can't see anything in the current version of the article that could be considered libellous. I've not been able to go back to the origial source as I don't speak italian, but I don't think that Noemi is hinted as having done anything wrong. Pontificake (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Allegations involving Letizia ...". That is quite simply libellous. There are no "Allegations involving Letizia...". An allegation "involving Letizia" implies that she has done something wrong. There are allegations against Berlusconi (that have neither been proved nor disproved yet) but there is no reliable suggestion that Letizia has been involved in anything improper, nor any serious allegations made against her either in relation to her actions or her character. Yet that is the premise of this article. Since the premise is so flawed as to be libellous, the article should be deleted. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • U.S. President Ronald Reagan was shot while in office. This is a news story involving Ronald Reagan. It says nothing against Ronald Reagan.
    Suppose that Joe Schmo is in the press because of allegations that he bilked Bill Gates out of a million dollars. This is IMHO, an "allegation involving Bill Gates". It makes no implication against Bill Gates.
    It seems to me that an allegation against X would be one implying that X may have done something wrong. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In those cases it is clear what happened. In this case, we are dealing with rumour, gossip and speculation. Therefore, "allegations involving..." could easily be interpreted in a negative way, given that Letizia is the subject of the article. That is why there is a separate article on the attempt on Reagan's life. If no one had been convicted, there would not be a separate article on an otherwise non-notable suspect all about how he was a suspect in the case. At most, the suspect would be mentioned in the Ronald Reagan was shot while in office article in passing. This is very similar. Whatever Belusconi may or may not have done, there is no evidence of impropriety against Letizia, who is otherwise not notable. The creation of the article, especially given some of the language it uses, clearly implies she has done something wrong, and is therefore libellous. Harry the Dog WOOF
  • (undent) You have based your line of argument on very shaky ground. This young lady is clearly over the bar of WP:N. Here is just one example, a quote from the New York Times:

    First came a rare and inescapable torrent of speculation — in blogs, on television and radio, at dinner tables across Italy — about the nature and origins of his relationship with Noemi Letizia, a pretty blond aspiring model whose 18th birthday party he attended in Naples last month, and who has said she calls him Daddy. This was the party that caused Mr. Berlusconi’s wife to declare their marriage, one year older than Ms. Letizia, over.

    Similar statements can be found in many of the other sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite sure what your point is. None of this justifies her own article. This is still about Berlusconi and his wife. There is no evidence of any misconduct by Letizia, and as such we should not be creating an article about her that, by implication and even explicitly, suggests otherwise. In fact, the NY Times is wrong. Berlusconi's wife never mentioned Letizia by name. She spoke of him "consorting with minors". Indeed he seems to have done that, and there are suggestions that there may of been improper conduct. But to embroil Letitzia in that by name when she was never mentioned by name by Berlusconi's wife is wrong. So what exactly is her notoriety? That she is a friend of the Italian PM and he threw a party for her and gave her a present. Does that really make her notable enough for her own article? If she is cited in the divorce petition and more evidence comes to light, the article can be recreated. But this is an example of precisely why the article should be deleted. Gossip and innuendo is being extrapolated to involve a living person by name, with the clear implication that she has misbehaved, when there is no evidence of that at all. We can discuss the ongoing fallout on Berlusconi's page because he is a public figure and as such we have some protection in discussing his actions. But Letizia is a private citizen, and to create an article on her which suggests impropriety on her part leaves Wikipedia on pretty shaky ground. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some highly reliable sources according to which the relationship between Silvio Berlusconi and Noemi Letizia has played a huge role in the decision made by Veronica Lario to file for a divorce; sources explain the enormous economic, financial, political impact of such a divorce; sources explain how Noemi was promised a brilliant career as an actress or as a politician (which may well happen, if you know Mara Carfagna story); sources say Noemi Letizia was in Berlusconi's villa with many other girls and this group of girls (most of them) payed by Berlusconi has been reported by sources as Berlusconi's harem; sources explain how the Noemigate is influencing italian elections for the European Parliament forcing Berlusconi to maintain a low profile; sources report the position of the Vatican that - on this occasion - has asked Berlusconi to be more sombre. All this has been caused by the incident with Noemi Letizia - incident called by many sources Noemigate. I believe this is quite enough for Wikipedia to have an article on her or at least on the incident itself (we could move the article to Noemigate). Nightbit (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly not. You misunderstand Wikipedia policy. Let me give as clear examples as I can. Even though they are heavily involved in major stories, Madeleine McCann and her family do not have separate articles. Neither do Josef Fritzl and his family. Why? Because they are non-notable people who have been caught up in notable events. Exactly the same is true with Letizia. We have to be extremely careful when it comes to biographies of living people. If otherwise reliable sources choose to report gossip and innuendo (and indeed, report it incorrectly), that does not mean that Wikipedia should follow suit. Letizia is an otherwise non-notable person, like Madeleine, Kate and Gerry McCann, and like Josef and Elizabeth Fritzl. And like them, she should not have her own article unless she achieves notability beyond the particular event. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me you seem to be arguing against deletion but in favour of a move to [[Noemi Letizia affair]], retaining the redirect (as in the case of Madeleine McCann and Josef Fritzl). The (presumably ex-) boyfriend would also redirect to that article. I could support you there, but I am not able to support either a deletion or a redirect to a subsection of the Berlusconi article: that is already unmanageably large and needs to be trimmed. Ian Spackman (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I am arguing for deletion and if necessary (which is not clear right now) the creation of a separate article on the controversy if it proves to have legs beyond the current interest. In the meantime, discussions of Berlusconi's alleged indiscretions should be confined to the article about him. I know it's a fairly long article, but we still need to have material in the appropriate place, and someone with as long and varied career (and personal life) as Berlusconi is of course going to have a lengthy article. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A hard work has been made to rewrite this article. Now it tells the whole Letizia-incident (which has been very relevant in Italy in the last month) from a neutral point of view, citing reliable sources. Often newspapers, italian and foreign, give wrong details of the story. We need to keep this article to explain it clearly. 01:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.15.250 (talk) — 62.10.15.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . However, Harry the Dog is right. As today, Letizia's involment in this incident is fading, while the central point has become Berlusconi's lies and angry reactions (sources in the article). Deletion of this article would be wrong, because I (and the other contributors before me) spent several hours finding reliable sources to reconstruct faithfully the story (I repeat that this reconstruction is important because newspapers often give wrong details). The text should be moved in the "Silvio Berlusconi" main article, or in a separate voice named "Papi-gate", "Letiziopoli" or-how-do-you-call-it. 20:51, 2009-06-01 (UTC)
  • Delete because there isn't anything new comparing this article with Silvio Berlusconi, after applying the use of reliable publications. Perhaps if there is anything new in future it can be rewritten, but for now even the main article is better written and sourced than this one. - Mailer Diablo 22:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's gossip, irrilevant on Wikipedia. Even the italian wiki doesn't have a page for this.--Sid-Vicious (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't say it's gossip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.84.170.195 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - predominantly WP:BLP1E. Greg Tyler (t • c) 16:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1BE. Mentioning her by name makes sense on the Berlusconi article; writing a complete article about her is both inappropriate and impossible. Nathan T 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can't be impossible because it's already been done... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A complete article written? I disagree. Nathan T 22:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A sufficient amount of sources to establish notability. Malinaccier (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK Community Issues Party[edit]

AfDs for this article:
UK Community Issues Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm proposed this article (and several others) for either deletion or for merger into a list of small British third parties. My reasoning is that there are a decent number of minor parties which while not notable enough to merit their own page (for having contested very few elections and/or effectively having acted as the electoral vehicle for one or a few candidates) may be notable enough to mention on here. This is in part a result of there being a 'grey' area between clearly non-notable parties (those that never ran for any office) and notable ones (Labour and the Tories come to mind), and there being no clear guidelines; it partly results from the ease of party registration in the UK (and a few other Commonwealth countries).Tyrenon (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'd like to see a clearer reason for why this article should be deleted; the nominator is expressing a fairly reasonable concern, but I feel like there ought to be a concrete justification for this page in particular. For reference, please see the two previous deletion debates (1st, 2nd) Avram (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for the expanded explanation. Working from the notability standards as they currently exist, this article should be fine-- it has nontrivial (albeit limited) coverage in independent sources, it is fully verifiable, and it is informative. While this is surely a very minor and possibly defunct party, the notability standards are not to be replaced by editors' own ideas of "obscurity". Avram (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, there are two reasons. First, there's what came up in the Dan Goldstick article debate: Simply running for office doesn't qualify an individual for notability, and I don't feel that it qualifies a party for notability, either. Second, and more on point, nothing they're doing seems to have, from what I can tell, made any substantial impact, and I sincerely doubt that any candidate they have run has netted even 500 votes. All of the coverage that has been cited has been in a local paper (there's nothing in, for example, the BBC), and at least one of the articles in that paper (http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2021549_petition_to_pm_calls_for_council_boss_to_go) even refers to it as an obscure party. When a party's local paper calls them obscure, that's probably not a sign of notability.

The best way to explain this is that while they may have be notable on a very local scale, I don't feel that they are notable enough to merit a full page on their own. Wikipedia readers and wonks who look through election returns notwithstanding, I sincerely believe you will be hard-pressed to find anyone outside of Surrey who has heard of this party, and not too hard-pressed to find plenty within that area who haven't heard of it.

Also, as an alternative to outright deletion, I'm suggesting rolling this and a raft of other parties (the Local Community Party, the Free Scotland Party, and a bunch of other minor ones) into a single article on minor British political parties (and such an article could probably take up a decent number of the other parties that -have- been dumped from Wikipedia if their inclusion was felt appropriate). Tyrenon (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the articles listed have survived a deletion discussion, some more than once. Should it not be incumbent on those proposing deletion to explain what has changed since those decisions? Groomtech (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, the decision both times was no consensus. As noted in the first instance, it was an odd case: The original nominator withdrew his nomination while the author of the article was arguing to get rid of it. In the second instance, there was again no consensus on it. A large part of the problem is that while the party has received some coverage, all of the coverage that was cited is in a single local paper. I sincerely believe that the party did not meet and continues not to meet WP:N. As it stands, with one exception, the arguments in favor of deletion last time were much stronger than those against deletion (half of the latter's votes being based on either the fact that the article either was not a hoax or that standing in an election justified the inclusion of the article, neither of which I agree mean that the party was notable). Also, this isn't a case where I'm seeking to overturn a pre-existing consensus, which I do believe shifts at least some of the burden back on the article itself, which again I don't believe has shown notability outside of a single local source.Tyrenon (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, of the others with prior AfDs, one (Your Party) is actually a fine example of me bungling up the formatting on a nomination and generating the appearance of two nominations (I've still got butterfingers with some of the editing stuff). The second (Scottish Jacobite Party), one of the two is me bumbling around. The other was a debate over whether the party was a hoax or not. It's not a hoax, but just because something is real doesn't make it notable.Tyrenon (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Groomtech (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Detailed article with sufficient sources to meet WP:N. Artw (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the rescue tag to a number of the other nominations as well, as with expansion and sourcing I beleive they are perfectly keepable. As for the idea of a gigantic merge between them all, I'm not sure AfD is the forum for it. Artw (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for reference, acc. to WP:N (and I know some people disagree with it) "attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability". Notwithstanding the links to the party's page and the Election Commission listing (the former not counting as it's strictly promotional material by the group, and the latter being a largely undetailed listing), the only source is a local media source.Tyrenon (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable <> importance. If we have sources then that's fine. And you can expect to see lots more small parties now that the major parties have lost public support. Worst case is that we assemble them into an omnibus article. Deletion would not be helpful in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. First, the only source other than the Elections Commission (purely a procedural entry, which indicates next to nothing on its own due to the relative ease of registering a party name) and the party website (again, not an indicator of notability) is a single local paper. That doesn't scream notability outside of an extremely local area, and the party's lack of electoral success suggests that it isn't particularly notable within the area. As to there being lots of new parties, it's one thing if they actually either win a substantial number of votes, run a large number of candidates, etc.; it's entirely another if it's someone out on a lark registering a party name, putting themselves and a friend or two up for election, and losing their deposit by a wide margin. Just because there are a lot of parties running around does not mean that they are notable in any way, shape, or form (particularly as many will likely be a momentary flash in the pan and then vanish).Tyrenon (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local Community Party[edit]

Local Community Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm proposed this article (and several others) for either deletion or for merger into a list of small British third parties. My reasoning is that there are a decent number of minor parties which while not notable enough to merit their own page (for having contested very few elections and/or effectively having acted as the electoral vehicle for one or a few candidates) may be notable enough to mention on here. This is in part a result of there being a 'grey' area between clearly non-notable parties (those that never ran for any office) and notable ones (Labour and the Tories come to mind), and there being no clear guidelines; it partly results from the ease of party registration in the UK (and a few other Commonwealth countries).Tyrenon (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Scottish Parliament election, 2007. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Per Cent Growth Party[edit]

Nine Per Cent Growth Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm proposed this article (and several others) for either deletion or for merger into a list of small British third parties. My reasoning is that there are a decent number of minor parties which while not notable enough to merit their own page (for having contested very few elections and/or effectively having acted as the electoral vehicle for one or a few candidates) may be notable enough to mention on here. This is in part a result of there being a 'grey' area between clearly non-notable parties (those that never ran for any office) and notable ones (Labour and the Tories come to mind), and there being no clear guidelines; it partly results from the ease of party registration in the UK (and a few other Commonwealth countries).Tyrenon (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Scottish Parliament election, 2007. A list of minor parties with no other link between them doesn't sound a great plan. In some cases, a merge to an article by ideology (e.g. liberalism in the United Kingdom) might make sense, but as this article doesn't have any information on ideology, the only thing to merge is the information about having achieved a record low vote, and that would be of interest in the article on the election. Warofdreams talk 12:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree on merging this into the Scottish Parliament election article. That's the only place the party got any mention; but for the record low vote total, I'd say even that wasn't merited, but I'll agree that merging it in there is probably safe.Tyrenon (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see the benefits of merging all these minor parties into a group. It's one of the pleasing quirks of the UK electoral process and how do you define 'minor' - what about all those tiny Christian parties that will never get elected but don't show any signs of dying off? Me677 (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In those cases, I wouldn't be opposed to creating a single article on Christian Parties in the UK (for example). Most of those parties tend to cater to an almost identical base, and in some cases one party is simply the re-branding of another one from a previous cycle (or, in at least one case [The Clause 28 Christian Democrats], they simply served as the electoral vehicle for one politician). There are a few other areas I can think of (Residents' Association parties jump to mind) where bundling a large number of the parties together as one general unit makes sense.Tyrenon (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In line with this, I also see a point to be made in that I think there should be country-specific guidelines as to what parties deserve articles. In the US, simply getting official party status in a state means that you've usually spent several tens of thousands of dollars and rounded up a large number of signatures (or won a lot of votes in an election). In the UK, by contrast, you've got the "50 quid and ten signatures" parties. While the latter are undoubtedly a nice quirk, they're a far cry from all being notable, as most will never save a deposit on any level or act as more than an arguable spoiler in an extremely close lone race...and often not even that.Tyrenon (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As a point of fact, 9% Growth Party subsequently deregistered from the Regiter of Political Parties so no longer exists, but do not see in this case the benefits of a deletion doktorb wordsdeeds 22:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the election page of whatever election they gain votes in. It only costs £150 to register with the EC, we can't be listing hundreds of parties which will no doubt get more views on Wikipedia than votes. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That's been my point in general: There are a large number of minor parties that have stood one or a few candidates in an election or a series of elections (i.e. a parliamentary election and a few local elections). There's ongoing talk somewhere on here about working up guidelines for inclusion, though.Tyrenon (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captain Beany. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Millennium Bean Party[edit]

New Millennium Bean Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While I feel that Captain Beany may be a notable figure, I believe that the mention of this party on his page is sufficient, and that the New Millennium Bean Party is not notable under Wikipedia's criteria on its own (as Captain Beany ran for all intents and purposes as an independent with a party label next to his name, if you will). Therefore, I believe this page should either be deleted and replaced with a redirect to Captain Beany's page, or deleted and merged into a "Minor British political parties" page of some sort.Tyrenon (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tatton Group[edit]

Tatton Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another extremely small party, this one only stood in a sole seat in a sole election and then wound up. I therefore feel that it does not measure up to our notability standards and should either be deleted or merged in with the numerous other parties which have run in only one or a small number of races and not achieved any significant impact.Tyrenon (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn. -- Banjeboi 23:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peace and Progress Party[edit]

Peace and Progress Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another of the parties that I feel should be either deleted from Wikipedia as non-notable, or at the very least merged into a "Minor British political parties" article. The party has made no notable electoral impact at any level, and has been listed with a notability notice for about 17 months. Therefore I feel it should be rolled in with the other parties I've nominated (and possibly a few others who have a stray councilor or two somewhere) in a minor parties article or dropped entirely.Tyrenon (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - a quick search on Google News turns up plenty of news coverage, some international. Although the party made little impact, I believe this coverage, combined with the presence of several notable people in the party leadership, is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Warofdreams talk 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The only notable people seem to have been the Redgraves, from what I can tell (as the Chris Cooper listed does not seem to be any of the people listed on the disambiguation page). Therefore, would a merge into their article make sense?Tyrenon (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We also have articles on Moazzam Begg, who was apparently a member of the steering committee, and on Babar Ahmad, who was a party candidate - while a lot of the coverage did revolve around the Redgraves' involvement, I think that the party was more than just them. Warofdreams talk 16:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think an entry on the page of one or both of the Redgraves is more appropriate. To the extent that the party did anything notable, it seems to have been a vehicle for the Redgraves' political activities, and I think it should be treated as such.Tyrenon (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But this feels borderline to me, could go either way on it.SallyRide (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn. -- Banjeboi 23:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Scotland Party[edit]

Free Scotland Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another of the parties I'm suggesting for either deletion or merger and deletion. See any of the last few nominations of UK parties for an explanation, but this is a party which appears to have run a few stray candidates at the 2005 General Election, won less than 2000 votes, and then vanished. I don't think it merits its own article, but merging a bunch of these parties together into a single "List of minor British political parties" article doesn't strike me as out of the question.Tyrenon (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Keep There seems to be enough coverage to warrent inclusion of this page, although it could use som work, perhaps expansion.SallyRide (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn after some discussion with another user, though I may bring this up again in the future (after some hammering-out is done on UK party guidelines, which do seem to be at least vaguely in the works).Tyrenon (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion except the nominator. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publican Party[edit]

Publican Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While this particular party is a bit more notable than the other ones I've nominated for merger/deletion, I don't feel that the Publician Party quite measures up to notability standards and therefore ought to be dropped or merged. I do feel that this one is a bit more of a borderline case (it did get over 5000 votes in the Scottish Parliament elections last time), but it still has the same feel as a number of the other one-shot parties I've brought up, and therefore I think it should probably go in the same pile as the rest of them (for merger or deletion).Tyrenon (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is it wise to merge it into the Scottish Parliament election article, when they also stood in the 2005 UK general election? Warofdreams talk 09:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headphones On[edit]

Headphones On (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod for no reason other than "a music video is in pre-production". Prod reason was "article fails notability standards and does not have the potential to meet notability standards. It was never released as a single and has never charted on any chart, despite what the article claims. A search on Google brings up only YouTube, mp3 and lyrics sites. Article was speedy deleted twice before, according to page logs." treelo radda 11:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The joe mangle angle[edit]

The joe mangle angle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a neologism which someone made up one day. PROD removed by the author who has gone to the trouble of setting up a special website on a free web-hosting service and adding a link to it. Sorry, Dave, that is not enough - see WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms. An article would need to show reliable secondary sources which are independent of the subject. Delete as not notable. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The nom covers everything, and I confirm that what it says is accurate. Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This term is useful but WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP and WP:ISNOTURBANDICTIONARY. Drawn Some (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In all liklihood made up, no reason to keep.Paste Let’s have a chat. 12:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks to me like complete original research, even if it's not WP:MADEUP. The article's only author is named 'Therealbigdave', implying that he has a connection with the owner and 'founder' of the Joe Mangle Angle. JulieSpaulding (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not likely to catch on, but what a fascinating story. Fiona & David were in the petrol station and a man looked at them whilst blowing air into his tyres. Yep, Fiona 'n me was at the gas station and we seen this guy gettin' his tires filled, an' Fiona says to me, she says, "Dave, ain't that Trent Dawson?" Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lolfail. This is the sort of article that really should have been deleted as a prod :/ Cheers. I'mperator 14:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think its relative to the heat of something, I forget how it goes. JBsupreme (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A quick Google search shows no relevant hits besides the wikipedia page, so I can't imagine it is in the any least bit notable. I do think its a funny story though. MATThematical (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to Shootfighting before this discussion could even start. Badger Drink (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot-fighting FC[edit]

Shoot-fighting FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

From what I can make of it, I believe this article is discussing a particular "shootfighting" event that took place one midspring's eve in Bristol. No claim of notability made (A7), but as it doesn't fall within the strictly literal confines of A7, I figured it'd be best to throw it here, rather than risk the wrath of those who fly into rages at such chocolatery. Badger Drink (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singam[edit]

Singam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NFF. No prejudice against recreation when reliable sources confirm that filming has commenced. Prod removed by anon user without explanation (article has also been successfully prodded before, but recreated). PC78 (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From the only reference: "The views expressed in the article are the author's and not of Sify.com". There is no reliable source, so as nom eloquently explained, WP:NFF and common sense requires deletion. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to WP:NFF: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. When I did a Google search on the issue there is only one story about this film from April 2008, about the movie being announced and not actually starting the filming process. JulieSpaulding (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - Vartanza (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFF--RadioFan (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied as G11. Badger Drink (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nottsford[edit]

Nottsford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While "one of the leading business school's" [sic] is, I guess, a vague whisper of a general hint of a shred of possible notability (hence no A7), this excessively promotional article does not seem to meet Wikipedia standards. The school it describes may pass "WP:ITEXISTS", but I have my doubts as to whether it meets "WP:N". Badger Drink (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - G11, blatant advertising. Dawn Bard (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Merge (non admin closure) --andy (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hasiklidika[edit]

Hasiklidika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is a real term used in a particular musical subculture but it's so fringe as to fail wikipedia's criteria for notability. E.g. googling "Hasiklidika" yields only about 100 hits, not all of which are relevant and many of which are in Greek. Adding "Rebetiko" to the search yields only 48 hits. Unlikely for a notable musical term. andy (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Rebetiko. While the term is well-known, there isn't much to say about it, and the relevant info would be placed in better context in the Rebetiko article. Constantine ✍ 12:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, but from the author's comments on the article's talk page and my talk page I'm not sure he'd agree to that: "I am just this guy, after all, and when I am dead nobody will miss one person who knew a fairly large amount about the Greek music about drugs. Sure it's obscure. Sure the Americans want all trace of drug culture destroyed, for whatever their reasons are. But I'm writing about something in the past, so it's history, and I put a reference to an excellent book about it". andy (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So? If he really wants to thwart these evil Americans and secure his posthumous fame, he better expand the article from an one-liner to something resembling an article. The subject is interesting (I'd certainly like to see a fully-fledged article on this), he has the sources, let him go ahead. If he indeed intends to do that, then the redirect can alwyas be edited and expanded. Until then, redirect and merge the one-liner into the main Rebetiko article. Constantine ✍ 18:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh do as you like. You know all the proper procedures, and I don't. You will just be finishing what Metaxas started. The Real Walrus (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who or what is Metaxas? I can't find a wikipedia editor with that name andy (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • is it really a good idea to initiate a deletion process when an article is only three minutes old? Judging from the availability of academic sources on the subject, I would expect it to be a viable article topic. --Hegvald (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if so, so be it. However, IMHO, there's insufficient evidence of notability. BTW this AFD process will take several days, not three minutes. andy (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yes, how relevant. Well, I'm with you on the merging. Let's keep this AfD open for another day or so and if nobody else wants to contibute anything I'll close it and merge & redirect. andy (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominated in good faith but no consensus to delete (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skagen Designs[edit]

Skagen Designs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP - the best source I can find is a press release in the associate press, the rest is the usual linkedin profiles etc. Cameron Scott (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Coverage of a law suit and a substantial writeup in Business Week. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Whpq and article in Erhversbladet. --Peter Andersen (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it was Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who said "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced...but I know it when I see it." I don't really know how this article even got this tag in the first place but maybe a little common sense would help when deciding to tag or not. Skagen is a widely-recognized brand across the globe. And why would Swatch be OK but Skagen Designs not? Huh? Maybe Cameron Scott and others should be more careful in tagging articles for speedy deletion. Also, since when do secondary sources mean only news outlets? aNubiSIII (T / C) 15:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please assume good faith and keep the discussion about the article, and not the editor. Note that the articel has no references whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • FYI, there was no assumption of bad faith here, merely that of carelessness but telling another user "to assume good faith" is an assumption of bad faith; it's funny I know but just a friendly reminder aNubiSIII (T / C) 15:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So yes, a notice about AGF is always problematic. However, I made my comment based the post calling out the behaviour of a specific editor (Cameron Scott) as an example, and calling for care to be taken. If you look at the article history, you will note that this AFD is not a knee jerk reaction to a PROD removal. And the editor even tagged the article for refrencing. So singling him out for bringing this to AFD is simply not appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bjorn Ackwayus[edit]

Simon Bjorn Ackwayus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable - either an embellished bio or a hoax. Sixtysixstar (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Sixtysixstar has made few or no other edits outside this discussion.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nominator. Seems like an interesting person but it is unsourced. A possible hoax. I cannot say it is unsourced now that there are newspaper citations.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources are clearly forged. The WSJ one cites Daniel Pearl as the author but the date given is 1968. Pearl was born in '63, as a quick check of his article will tell you. I doubt a five-year-old was writing obituaries for a national newspaper which doesn't generally run obituaries. If anything, we have source forgery.Tyrenon (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at the weekend I shall have access to a library where I can check the back numbers of the London Times; I suppose it is just worth doing that in order to hammer one more nail in the coffin of this WP:Complete bollocks. JohnCD (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the online archives for "Simon Ackwayus" (as his name was listed in the purported article title). No hits. No hits for "Ackwayus", either. Shame we can't bop the creator(s) for forging sources; I consider that to be an even bigger issue than cooking up a WikiHoax.Tyrenon (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, having not seen that image before, might there be a copyvio on the picture? It's claimed as a portrait of the guy, but the guy is pretty clearly fictional meaning that it's from somewhere else.Tyrenon (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image file was uploaded by Giant turtle, the article author; the upload notes say: "painted in 1939 and released into the public domain by Artist William Van Tasserfeld |Source=Own work by uploader |Author=Giant turtle, William Van Tasserfeld". That seems to say Giant turtle is Van Tasserfeld; he must be getting on if he painted that 70 years ago. There is no trace of him on Google, Books or Scholar. I don't recognise the picture, and I don't know of any Google-type search function for an image. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. I'm not so easily fooled. If he was born in England and went to University of London then why did he first attend Nepean High School (Ottawa) as shown here? Why was it an IP from Ottawa that added the information? Might it not have been this young man who created this hoax? Or this old one? And might he also have created this Urban Dictionary entry whilst laughing at the fatty with the butter stains? Would he advocate revolution if the buses didn't run? Would he advocate wholesale slaughter of dogs and emo kids? I call B.S. on this. Let us take a stand to preserve Wikipedia from bored young men. Drawn Some (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even funny. If genuine (it's not) the editor should create a new article with at least one verifiable fact. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ^^^. JBsupreme (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoaxalicious. Edward321 (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. He traded his son to a group of gypsies for 6kg of potato salad? As mentioned above, it's not even funny. --bonadea contributions talk 11:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a hoax. His 'childhood friend' was born when he was almost 40. Riiiight.Tyrenon (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just to add to the burial, it says he worked on the Model A Ford in the late 1930s. The Model A went out of production in 1931.Tyrenon (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - among much other nonsense, the article claims that in 1942 "he was the 3rd person to successfully sail the 2900 mile transatlantic voyage", but it is clear from Single-handed sailing#The pioneers that the third single-handed Atlantic crossing had been made by 1899. JohnCD (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow hoax delete. Quack quack. -- Banjeboi 01:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim jersey[edit]

Jim jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod, deprodded. Probably a CSD candidate.

This is a non notable football/soccer player. The references are to cat or dog articles, and other things about the article lead me to believe it's a hoax.

I find nothing on the google searches, and as I said, the references provided go to nothing that mentions the subject of the article.

If I'm somehow mistaken, please correct me. Shadowjams (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as blatant hoax. Drawn Some (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please try, but I doubt it'll happen. I've seen a number of obvious hoaxes denied for CSD recently. Shadowjams (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who read it carefully and even glanced at the references would see the hoax. It doesn't make a bit of sense. Drawn Some (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ooops. Word has got out that we Wikipedians will spend hours if not days debating trivia. I read the article. There is no prospect of it being "improved". I did find this reference quite amusing, but also revealing. Johnuniq (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in investigating Simon Bjorn Ackwayus just above, it appears that an account was created for the sole purpose of nominating it for deletion to watch the fun. But that's not WP:AGF on my part, is it? Drawn Some (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, a snowball case. Jamie☆S93 18:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Robertson[edit]

Craig Robertson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject is non-notable soccer player with no professional experience; fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE JonBroxton (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snow keep and a crash course in the difference between cleanup and deletion for those wanting to delete this. Fram (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia–Philippines relations[edit]

Malaysia–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another completely combination. There is a lack of party between these religions. [79] ApprenticeFan talk contribs 05:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Several promising articles at the Google News Archives: [80]. These countries are geographically close to each other, and have substantial populations, so I'm sure the article has more potential than, say, Bhutan–Grenada relations. I don't fully understand the nominator's comments, since there appear to be some words missing. Zagalejo^^^ 06:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another perfect combination - two quite large countries in the same region, there must be something. What's next, France-Germany relations? NVO (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are no sources for this article, only the high related bilateral relations (e.g. Philippines-United States has many sources found). ApprenticeFan talk contribs 07:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I generally lean towards a more minimalist view of Wikipedia, but I think this is a reasonable one to at least try and improve. I'd at least suggest looking to see if there are any substantial treaties between them, and both have claims on the Spratly Islands as well. Unlike, say, Kosovo-Peru Relations (one of many such pairings that got thrown up on here), this one has a good basis and probably needs some work, but I seriously doubt that it should be deleted outright.Tyrenon (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The current standard is to keep only notable ones, and do others in the "relations" articles of each country. This one though is probably within the exception. Shadowjams (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you guys who want to keep can find some sources, share them, please, so we ignorant masses may be enlightened. Also remove this sentence before you save it: "Malaysia and the Philippines share a one-of-a-kind clandestine relationship rooted on the bases of geography, ethnicity, and political aspirations." Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - They share a border (maritime, but it's real). Here is an article whose title is "Malaysia-Philippines relations". I agree with you often on these things, but this is a bad example; this one's notable. One of the criteria for the relations "agreement" (or whatever it was), is that they share a border. Shadowjams (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, at least someone actually offers a source instead of blah blah blah about how important this content-less, unreferenced article is. Drawn Some (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I support merge to either Foreign relations of Malaysia or Foreign relations of the Philippines article for sure. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 10:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Does that mean that you're withdrawing your deletion nomination then? Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Malaysia and the Philippines are both major South East Asian countries which share a (somewhat disputed) maritime border off Borneo and in the South East China Sea and are members of many regional bodies. I'm normally polite about AfD nominations, but this was a very careless nomination and seems to have been made without even consulting a map. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "keep" comments point out that the two countries are physically close. However, the fact that they are close yet there is still nothing to say about the relations indicates that this is another in the series of pointless "X–Y relations" articles. An important clue is that searching Malaysia for "phil", and searching Philippines for "malay", shows that there is nothing to say about Malaysia–Philippines relations. There are over 40,000 pairs of countries. Please wait until you have at least a paragraph to write before creating an article. As Drawn Some noted, the only content in the article is nonsense and will have to be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some external links to the article that suggest some ways in which the article could be expanded. Also a picture. There is quite a lot to say about the relationship. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure if this is nominated to make a point of some sort, since I can't figure out even the basis for the nomination. I honestly can't figure out the meaning of "Another completely combination. There is a lack of party between these religions". As Aymath has demonstrated, there are plenty of sources to show that these neighboring Pacific nations have a relationship, something that is not at all surprising. Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Disputes: Sabah dispute, Spratly Islands. Both founding members of ASEAN. Strong cultural ties between the Sulu and Sabah peoples. In addition, Malaysia hosted the peace talks between the MILF and the Philippine government. --seav (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute keep 150,000 news results, thousands of book results, and scholar results such as this demonstrate that there is plenty of notability. Territorial disputes, founding members of ASEAN, etc and added into a nomination which makes exactly zero sense, this is a keeper. --Russavia Dialogue 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep - Important relations article between two large Asian countries. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Large list of references to provide something to work with. Given that the countries in question are large Asian countries in close proximity to one another (I think they share a sea border), I would expect that the relations are far more than trivial. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not one single statement in the article is sourced, and the list of External Links are an indiscriminate collection of news articles, none of which show notability of the topic as a whole. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The external links seems to be dumped there for the meantime and will be integrated into the article as citations. For now they are there to show notability, which apparently you did not even browse. Due diligence please. --seav (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dumping links and improving the article are two very different things. And in any case, none of them show notability of the article topic stated by the title of the article, only individual events. Still fails WP:N, unless you'd care to do the work? --BlueSquadronRaven 23:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "None" show notability? You must have some warped sense of what notability is. In addition, a deletion discussion should not be used to force improvement of an article. What matters is assertion of notability, which those dumped links do. --seav (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I second Seav's statements, with the exception that AfD is practically used, maybe rightfully so, to force improvement or force deletion. This isn't a bad thing, but a consequence of normal AfD procedures. Shadowjams (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with nominating for AfD to force improvement. See WP:BEFORE. Nominator should check for references, and if it is clear that the article has potential should consider expanding it themselves, or notify editors who have worked on it that it needs expansion. Much more time has been wasted on this discussion than has been spent on the current rough expansion. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In no way am I saying that this is a good example of what should be nominated, or that there's any evidence WP:BEFORE was followed. WP:BEFORE is frequently misused as an argument at AfD to subtly not assume good faith, but this AfD is one of the rare legitimate targets for that argument. I'm making a very minor point largely unrelated to this discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have integrated the dumped links into the article as citations. It is still skeletal, and I encourage other editors to expand. The subject is rich, complex, important and deserves much deeper coverage. A focused search on specific topics, such as "Malaysia Mindanao" would yield many more and better sources. But I have a huge backlog of real-life work to clear before going on vacation, so just do not have time. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I note from his user page that this !voter is very proud of his achievements in creating articles about laughably trivial aspects of nerddom. How on Earth could anyone with two brain cells to rub together think that Malaysia–Philippines relations are less notable that a single episode of Battlestar Galactica? Come on guys, we're supposed to building an encyclopedia here, not a directory of fanboy trivia. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A massive WP:TROUT for the nominator. Complete failure to look for sources, complete failure to engage common sense, and an incoherent nomination to top it off. Fences and windows (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a nice timeline of the relations between the two countries on the site of the Philippines embassy in Kuala Lumpar. Fences and windows (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to their userboxes ApprenticeFan is Filipino, making it unlikely that this nomination was made in ignorance of the significance of the relations between the Philippines and Malaysia. I don't like to suggest this, but I think this was a bad faith nomination. Fences and windows (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This nomination, and the fact that that it has been supported by 2 1/2 editors, leave me speechless. I'll come back later with specifics because anything I want to say now would violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Malaysia and the Philippines have very important ties that are now reliably sourced--Lenticel (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow - It's time for WP:SNOW on this. I'd prefer an uninvolved admin do it. Shadowjams (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedied by Graeme Bartlett. Syn 13:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palm ZEN[edit]

Palm ZEN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A self-proclaimed hoax by the author, I can't find anything relevant in searching. Keegantalk 05:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy delete" - utter bollocks (hover 3d screen?). --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as blatant hoax, more ridiculous than the Microsoft Zune. Drawn Some (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an obvious hoax (so advanced it supports wireless standards that don't even exist yet!). So tagged. Obligatory snark: With all the features it's supposed to include, such as a 128MB ATI GPU, two HD video cameras, a hard disk, and about five different wireless radios, this phone would be about the size of a briefcase. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Wireless charging is still in its very early stages, and going by this article, the battery's charge on this thing if everything was in use would be about 90 seconds. 1024x768 is not HD (it's a 4:3 format), USB 3.0's standard has not been fully formed or released for manufacturers, and finally...the Palm Pre is not even out yet! It cannot have a predecessor if there's nothing yet to precede! Nate • (chatter) 12:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Bloodoff[edit]

Evan Bloodoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod without explanation. Non-notable ice hockey player that fails WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE – Nurmsook! talk... 05:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — No pro experience; nothing else to suggest he is notable. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable junior hockey player who has yet to play professionally so fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Can be recreated when and if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. -Djsasso (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has not even played pro yet. JBsupreme (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WHL is not a pro league and no evidence of selection to national team. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As we have gone over before, the WHL is not a pro league, and simply playing in it is not notable enough on its own. He has not done anything else notable to merit an article, yet. If that happens, then bring it back. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enough coverage out there. Malinaccier (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Friedman (composer)[edit]

David Friedman (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: fails WP:COMPOSER (none of his compositions have achieved any prominence) and does not appear to meet the rest of WP:MUSIC through his lesser roles (conductor/vocal contractor/music director) in more prominent ventures. Current sole citation is to composer's WP:SELFPUB songbook. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I know these quotes are on his website, but there's clear notability if this checks out:[81]. Also see [82]. A composer of a platinum selling song would be notable, yes? Fences and windows (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems he's written songs for Barry Manilow, Diana Ross, Kathie Lee Gifford, and Dolly Parton. "He was composer/lyricist of "Your Love," sung by Diana Ross, which won the 1992 MAC Award for Song of the Year; "Help Is on the Way," which earned him the 1994 MAC Award for Comedy Song of the Year; and "My Simple Christmas Wish," which garnered the 1994 Johnny Mercer Award and the 1995 Bistro Award for Songwriter of the Year".[83] Sources: Seattle Gay News interviewed him:[84]. Review of a show of his songs in the New York Times:[85]. Interview with Talking Broadway:[86]. 200 more news stories here: http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&num=100&q=%22David+Friedman%22+composer&cf=all. Fences and windows (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MAC Award redirects to the Missouri Athletic Club Hermann Trophy (nor is its 'Song of the Year' listed in Song of the Year), so I doubt if the above awards are "major". "'Your Love,' sung by Diana Ross" does not rate a mention at the Your Love dab. None of the other awards or songs mentioned above rate an article either. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong MAC Award, there is a world outside Wikipedia redirects. See here:[87]. These awards have got 200+ news hits:http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=%22MAC+Awards%22+cabaret&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&num=100&scoring=a Your Love was on Ross' One Woman: The Ultimate Collection, a UK number 1 album. Rather than cherry-picking arguments against what I found, why not do some of your own searching? Fences and windows (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So 'MAC' = Manhattan Association of Cabarets and Clubs. Hardly prestigious. WP:GOOGLEHITS do not make an award "major". 'Your Love' was one of three recently-recorded/previously-unreleased pieces at the end of this compilation album (giving some impression that they were 'filler' -- and a strong impression that they weren't the album's selling point -- which were the earlier major hits at the start of the album). Why should I waste time on a composer who nobody outside the Manhatten cabaret scene has heard of, and whose other main claim to fame is for providing filler material for more notable artists? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is supposed to be a last resort for articles that can't be rescued. It's not a waste of time to see if we can avoid losing a biographical article. You're supposed to make a good faith effort to look for reliable sources before deleting. I didn't say the award appeared in lots of "Google hits", I said it appeared in a lot of news articles; there's a difference. Hartford Courant called the MAC Awards "the top cabaret award in New York City",[88] New Jersey's Record said they are "cabaret's honor roll"[89]. Fences and windows (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable as a conductor of Disney films etc, although these bits not referenced. Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the articles and interviews I found above, here's some more coverage:
  • An article in the LA Times about a song commission in 1992:[90]
  • An article in Philadelphia Inquirer in 2004 about Chasing Nicolette, for which he wrote the music:[91]
  • Review of the revue of Friedman's music, Listen to My Heart, in Broadway World[92], another in '*Milwaukee Journal Sentinel[93], another in Dallas News, which notes that "David Friedman's songs pop up on nearly every new cabaret show or album these days"[94], another in Greater Tulsa Reporter,[95] and an interview with him about it in The British Theatre Guide.[96]
  • An obituary of Nancy LaMott in the New York Times notes that Friedman was central to her career:[97]. That claim is confirmed in New York Magazine:[98] and Billboard[99], in an article about him releasing her work posthumously.
  • Review of Stunt Girl in the Seattle Times, which Friedman wrote the music for:[100]
  • Review of As Long as I Can Sing in Dallas News, which Friedman wrote the songs for; he is mentioned in the title:[101]
  • Article about him in The Buffalo News in 2005:[102][103]
  • He wrote the music for King Island Christmas, which received a lot of press coverage, including 48 articles naming him: http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=%22King+Island+Christmas%22+%22david+friedman%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&num=100&scoring=a.
  • He wrote the music for Disney's Aladdin and the King of Thieves, the 2nd Aladdin sequel, although Entertainment Weekly wasn't impressed: "The five new songs, by David Friedman and the Jafar team of Randy Petersen and Kevin Quinn, lack the original film's Howard Ashman-Alan Menken sparkle (there's a love duet for Aladdin and Jasmine that'll clear your rec room in seconds)." Ouch.[104] New York Daily News was kinder: "the songs, while not up to the Ashman-Menken gold standard, are quite pleasant, especially David Friedman's "Out of Thin Air," sung by Brad Kane and Liz Callaway."[105]
  • Hugh Panaro, a Broadway star, says this of Friedman: "Well, this is funny because I have been a fan of David Friedman for – I don't know how many years. My friend who is no longer with us, Laurie Beechman, sang a lot of David's music on her CDs. So I met David and he asked if I'd like to do his show "Listen to My Heart." And when it rains, it pours! I had to make a decision between doing David' s show and "Phantom of the Opera." And I won't lie – I went for the money. And I also knew that "Phantom" was probably a longer commitment and I could get my teeth into it a bit more. I told David and he understood. He wished I could have done his show, and he was gracious. He's amazing."[106]
  • Kathie Lee Gifford says: "David Friedman worked for years at Disney, writing and conducting the scores for various films and Broadway shows. In other words, I called the best."[107]. They co-wrote songs for a musical, Hats!.[108]
  • To sum up, while "David Friedman isn't exactly a household name among theater composers",[109] he has written music for some very famous names, worked on Disney movies as a conductor, arranger and song writer, and been central to musical theatre productions that got good coverage. He's well worth us having an article about. If nothing else cuts it, then he definitely meets this criteria: "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture". He is frequently covered in cabaret and Broadway publications: Playbill has 46 articles that at least mention him:[110] Fences and windows (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as songwriter for platinum recording artists and as conductor of the scores for several top-grossing animated features (Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas). Plus the many references that Fences and windows listed above that can be added to the article make it a keeper for sure. --Tikilounge (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Louvel[edit]

Nick Louvel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficient notability to warrant an article per WP:N and the 4 pertinent tests of WP:CREATIVE. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 04:25, 26 May 2009 (U*TC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Naked News. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne West[edit]

Roxanne West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I first listed another one of these ladies for AFD as a test case, but it ended up G12 CSDed instead. So here's another one as a new test case. This lady is a newsreader for Naked News. And as far as I can see, that's her only claim to notability. As the question is, is that enough, by itself, to meet the notability requirements. And my opinion is that it is not. As a test case, I'll likely be AFDing or not AFDing more of these ladies with only this single claim to notability, depending on the general outcome of this AFD. The first, aborted test case was here in case anyone wants to see the arguments made there. TexasAndroid (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect to Naked News (which sounds very interesting!), as no notability asserted out of one singular thing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There appears to be only one article with a couple of paragraphs discussing her that is either a press release or syndicated as it appears several times in different sources on a Google news search. So she fails to have sufficient in-depth COVERAGE in independent reliable sources to meet general requirements of WP:BIO and she doesn't meet specific requirements of WP:PORNBIO, either. Drawn Some (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Naked News. No estabilished notability for own article Paulbrock (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect per Paulbrok. --Kyle1278 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Williams (visual artist)[edit]

Doug Williams (visual artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural AfD - This article was originally deleted as an uncontested PROD. Per a request on my talk page, I have undeleted the article to send to AfD.

The original PROD rationale was:

Lacks notability. Career seems to consist of one World Record which could probably be listed elsewhere on wiki...such as Chest hair.

This tag was endorsed by another editor, who added:

would seem to be a classic WP:BLP1E candidate

I personally do not have a definite opinion one way or another, which is why I sent this here. J.delanoygabsadds 03:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep; no new reason offered for deletion. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Talent (2nd nomination)[edit]

DJ Talent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A virtual nobody who will disappear into the abyss of past partial somebodies. Previous nomination failed because he remained in the contest -- now he's out, so now he should go. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Whereas I agree he may yet become a nobody, he has had enough coverage in the press to indicate he is not one as yet. So yes, he MAY disappear into the abyss as above, but it is not certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkmeister (talk • contribs) 07:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Very notable now due to BGT, despite having exited. Chances are this guy will end up with a Number 1 record also due to the popularity, which is surly notable enough. To top it off, was notable before BGT appearance, so exiting the show is irrelevant imo anyway. C.U.T.K.D T | C 08:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Hints given in Semi-Final 2 and Britain's Got More Talent that DJ Talent will have his "Britain's Got Talent" rap released as a single which will promote the BGT franchise. If this happens it will almost certainly chart high, although probably as a novelty one-hit wonder. Note that BGT have already been "socialising" the rap in comedy sequences, especially during BGMT. "You say Britain, I say Talent, Britain's Got Talent, It's a Dj Talent" has been used as the catchphrase of the series. Expect to see more of DJ Talent once the semi-finals and final are ended. RussG72924 11:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has admitted that his statement was false. Non-admin closure per WP:BOLD C.U.T.K.D T | C 12:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hollie Steel (2nd nomination)[edit]

Hollie Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject's time has come and gone. Previous nomination failed to reach consensus because claims were made that Steel was a contender for Susan Boyle and so just as notable. She has now been eliminated and so should this article. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she has not been eliminated as of 26 May 2009. Please get your facts correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.199.143 (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct -- sorry for the mix-up! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and redirect (with protection so that the redirects can no longer be undone): redirects are cheap anyway, but since there is nothing to be merged or kept, we can delete it first. Fram (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ringleader Man[edit]

Ringleader Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Karaoke(T-Pain song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-charting single with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NSONGS. Bundling with another song by the same artist, same issues. Redirects on both have been reverted more than once. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Have you ever tried to merge the content instead of just redirecting the page? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 11:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What parts of those wholly unsourced stubs that aren't already in the parent article would you suggest merging? TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't find anything about "Karaoke" in the album article. BTW: Isn't it strange, that there's no coverage about the singles from such a successful and critically acclaimed album? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 12:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was unable to verify that these songs were actually released as singles. (And it seems pretty unlikely that if they were, they wouldn't have charted, considering how popular the artist is.) Even the album's article omits them from the list of singles, though the text of the article claims there was a promo single of Ringleader (though it's unclear, that may be referring to the song's iTunes release prior to the album coming out, which doesn't make it a promo single). TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. It's a non-notable song; the article has been redirected to the album many times and it should be remain that way until some charting occurs. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 00:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: article also exists at Karaoke (T-Pain song). TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *YES! 22:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is simply nothing to these articles, or these songs, apparently. No sourcing, no chart positions, no nothing. Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, One two three... 03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Non-notable songs per WP:NSONGS, nothing to merge, redirects unlikely. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both to the artist. Fails WP:V, but as the content is entirely non-toxic plain information, I suggest a redirect to preserve info in history and let other people continue, when (if) sources appear. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, both fail notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 10:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Accola[edit]

Candice Accola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has not received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nom withdrawn, article kept. Jamie☆S93 18:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M. Weiner[edit]

Richard M. Weiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a resume, not an article. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Yeah, it's a resume but the subject of the "article" meets notability requirements. I was skeptical at first but his articles are much-cited and his books are held by many important libraries. Needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, should be kept and cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciceronibus (talk • contribs) 12:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC) — Ciceronibus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Richard M. Weiner is a well known physicist who has brought important contributions in atomic, nuclear and particle physics predicting several new effect which were later confirmed. He is the author of the first and so far only textbook on Bose-Einstein correlations JIROT (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC) — JIROT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Yes, keep it I am just writing a Wikipedia article about Bose-Einstein correlations and find the contributions of Weiner to this important topic fundamental. The modern theory of Bose-Einstein correlations is due to him and his collaborators.Kikeku (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) — Kikeku (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. Web of Science test: Phys. Rev. D (1993), 79 citations; Phys. Let. B (1985) 76 citations; Phys. Let. B (1989) 75 citations; Int. J. Mod. Phys. A (1993) 67 citations; Phys. Let. B (1992) 60 citations; Phys. Let. B (1993) 54 citations; Phys. Let. B (1989) 53 citations, ... The subject is unquestionably notable – article should be cleaned and saved. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Weiner is one of the leading scientists in an area of theoretical physics that is of considerable actuality and, due to current developments in particle physics and the experiments at CERN, also of public interest. His theoretical predictions of the Isomeric Shift and of Hot Spots in nuleons and nuclei could have brought him a Nobel Price. Weiner definitely meets the notability requirements, but the article needs to be cleaned up. (Transmobilator) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transmobilator (talk • contribs) 14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — Transmobilator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - unless I'm mistaken, he fails all the WP:PROF requirements. He certainly fails points 2-3 and 5-9. Points 1 and 4 are a bit less clear, but what is suspicious is that 9 of 14 footnotes cite works by him - failing the "independent reliable sources" requirement, and that a further footnote uses an Amazon review (!) to validate his notability. We're left with two papers citing him (which isn't that remarkable when you've written nearly 200, and anyway don't actually discuss him but his work), a blurb for his book, and a couple of sources indicating he's been interviewed (which is not evidence of notability). What's strikingly lacking is independent reliable sources about Weiner and about the fact that he has made a significant impact in his scholarly discipline. - Biruitorul Talk 15:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, I'm afraid you are mistaken. As someone pointed out below, satisfying any one of the criteria is sufficient. Web of Science shows numerous highly cited research papers (i.e. >50 citations apiece, see above) – unmistakable evidence of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

" If ANY ONE of these criteria is met...." Weiner meets several of those criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.48.116 (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — 71.240.48.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Mandate[edit]

AfDs for this article:
CBS Mandate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article survived a deletion debate in 2006, but in 3 years standards may have changed over time. My biggest concern over this article is that, while somewhat interesting, it seems to largely be a huge piece of original research. There does not appear to be any evidence that the "CBS Mandate" actually exists as such, except for the information in this article or in Wikipedia mirrors of it. Given the utter lack of evidence that this concept even exists outside of Wikipedia, I am again nominating it for deletion. Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did create this page back when I was a novice at Wikipedia, and I thought it was interesting. However, CBS is shying away from the Mandate now. Plus I've gotten better at making what articles are important. There's no reason to keep it.Jgera5 (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per author's commentes above, entirely original research. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hilarie Burton. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Gothic Productions[edit]

Southern Gothic Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined the speedy and prodded. I'm really sorry (because I'd love to see the film industry in North Carolina grow), but none of the sources establish notability, and I couldn't find anything useful at Google archives, either. If this is deleted, please re-create the article after you've got significant and extensive press coverage. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:NOHARM. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This company is in its beginning stages. Sure there may not be the extensive media coverage yet, but I don't see how that's grounds for deletion. Check out the blog and see the dedicated followers there and the numerous projects they have coming up. They have sources, there are dozens of people working extremely hard to keep it running and leaving it on wiki would be just one more way for it gain coverage, I think. I don't think there's any harm in keeping it on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmmdenver • contribs) 01:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — Nmmdenver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
See WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:N. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Hillarie Burton. A vanity production company, they are ten a penny, any information can be housed at Burton's page, or any film pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect (changing my implied vote) per Darren. - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Darren. Anybody else smell socks?--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Lynn Martin[edit]

Christy Lynn Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Female schoolteacher accused of sexual offenses towards students, which appears to have caused a flurry of transient media reports as with dozens of similar cases, but otherwise entirely unremarkable. Fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E.  Sandstein  21:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:BLP1E applies. --kelapstick (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a thought; this topic does indicate an increasing trend of TEACHERS entering relationships with students and minors, is there an article on the very first such case? What was even the very first case? Anyhow, if this subject of recent warped tendencies of teacher-student relationships has been touched upon elsewhere, fine, but if not, this kind of an event should be noted and recorded for future generations...Turqoise127 (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a toss up: I think the WP:BLP1E definitely could apply; however, as a resource, someone researching the subject matter (perhaps a psych student) may need these for research. On the flipside, are we going to have an article for dozens and dozens of "cougars" having some kind of sexual relationship with a male student? I'd say default to keep and perhaps revisit the issue to see if something comes of it (i.e., perhaps some kind of case law or the like).--It's me...Sallicio! 01:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and especially the "do no harm" ethic of WP:BLP. There lacks the depth-of-coverage to provide a balanced, WP:NPOV treatment of this living person, and as such, there should probably not be an article about her. A smattering of local news coverage and some police blotter stuff does not a complete article make. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a stub to Sexting. Only one event, she's not notable otherwise, and teacher/student relationships are nothing new. Fences and windows (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Charlatans (album). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crashin' In[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Crashin' In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Single does not meet WP:MUSIC requirements for notability Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 14:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Let's get a third opinion... Francium12 (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to artist. Charting single, but it didn't get much media attention it seems. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neither source (both reviews) provide information indicating this is a notable song. The assertion that this song reached 34 in UK charts is not supported by either source. Rklawton (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chart position of #31 is confirmed by the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles. One can't expect too much in the way of online media attention for a single released 15 years ago, but I'd be surprised if there aren't any print sources. Certainly there is enough published literature about the band for me to give it the benefit of the doubt. PC78 (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteRedirect. I merged the content to The Charlatans (album) which is the album the single belongs to. I do not believe there is enough information or notability to merit its own article, but a redirect to the album page is suggested. ZabMilenko 08:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If content has been merged, then I believe the article is required to be kept as a redirect. FWIW, I shall reiterate my belief that as a single from a notable band—and the lead single from an album—there will more than likely be plenty of coverage in contemporary print sources at least to make this a viable article. PC78 (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The single itself does have the potential to be article-worthy but even if deleted there are steps to take for recreating it later with new sources. For the time being a merge/redirect is a nice compromise between deletionism and inclusionism. ZabMilenko 11:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to meet WP:MUSIC#Songs. While it has charted, I believe there isn't enough, nor will there likely be enough to warrant a reasonably detailed article, as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. The mention and reference in the album article more than covers this song.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 10:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Livingston center shops[edit]

Livingston center shops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Inappropriate list (of shops in the malls of a certain city). Wikipedia is not a mall directory. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Article was userfied, which makes sense. No reason to keep cross-space re-direct. When/if article is mainspace worthy, it can be moved back preserving GFDL history. Etc. StarM 04:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster Public Library[edit]

Lancaster Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining db-empty speedy, and there are too many hits here for me to evaluate. The 40 summaries that I've skimmed don't suggest notability, but you never know, maybe sources will be found. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The best course in this situation might be to suggest that the article be created in user space and also point out WP:ORG and that the article will be held against that standard. The problem is not necessarily that the library system is not notable but that the article hasn't even gotten started. Drawn Some (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to user space until it can be expanded. However, if it is recreated, the name should reflect that this is Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and not Lancaster. UK, which also has a library service. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed about the rename, the Google archives hits were about 50-50 between the two. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfied. Now this discussion is about what to do with the redirect I left behind. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfication is deletion from mainspace; what's the deletion rationale, SNOW, or one of the speedy criteria? (I can see G2 here, but I brought it to AfD because I was looking for some discussion rather than a quick deletion.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd say G2. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Themis A. Vassiliadis[edit]

Themis A. Vassiliadis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining the db-bio speedy deletion since the article has been around in this form for a while, but I'm getting no Google or Google archives hits at all on this guy, both with and without the middle initial (except for hits that probably came from us). - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable guy, even a Google search in Greek brings all sorts of things but nothing related to a "mystic poet". Constantine ✍ 02:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utterly non-notable in English, and as Constantine states, in Greek sources as well. Fails WP:BIO. Drawn Some (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The author's name gives no google book and no google hits pertaining to the subject that don't come from WP. The Steps of the Passage and "Themis" brings about no google hits; when the greek title is searched, the only result is from "Factolex", which seems to be a collection of facts taken from wikipedia. Notability is certainly unable to be established given the complete lack of sources from both Greek and English texts. Mrathel (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Spain relations[edit]

Georgia–Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

although Georgia has an embassy in Spain, there is a lack of third party coverage except some chess and sporting relations. [112] . Info on South ossetia should be in International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war. Georgian foreign ministry doesn't say much, no state visits from either country, 3 minor agreements and trade less than USD20,000 each way. I'm sure a rich Spanish businessman has invested more overseas than this. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm pretty sure those figures are meant to be millions of dollars, not thousands, but they are still pretty insignificant in terms of international trade. I doubt they would bother to track or list trade less than 20,000 or else their data is poor. An automobile, a container of furniture, a decent shipment of oranges, any of those would be over $20,000. I wouldn't be surprised if Spain exported more than $20,000 worth of saffron or lavender buds to Georgia each year. Drawn Some (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lack of in-depth coverage of this topic to achieve notability. Drawn Some (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sign of actual notability, and minimal total trade sugges it will remain so. Collect (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No prospect for improving article. A lot of people commented about the 2008 South Ossetia war. The relations are not notable. Johnuniq (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no independent coverage of the topic as a whole to establish notability of these relations over any other. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources adress these relations in any detail. Hipocrite (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Money (season 3)[edit]

I Love Money (season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a future television show with no reliable sources supporting a premiere date. As such, it should be considered pure advertisement, and speedy deleted. Article was tagged, but the tag was quickly removed. Plastikspork (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pepsi Center. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009 Pepsi Center double-booking controversy[edit]

May 2009 Pepsi Center double-booking controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability show whatsoever.  iMatthew :  Chat  01:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable. And has received a lot of media attention lately. Brady4mvp (Talk) 01:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial reaction is to redirect to the section on it at Pepsi Arena. This situation received a huge amount of mainstream attention though, including almost every sports show and site in the US. Hell, I have seen articles on kidnapping victims that got less coverage than this. So I could go either way. TJ Spyke 01:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing more than an overblown story where Vince is trying to get as much publicity from it as possible. Does not need its own article. A note in the Pepsi Center and the History of World Wrestling Entertainment will do fine.--WillC 01:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Pepsi Center. If expanded, the bulk of the article would deal with the media reaction and Vince McMahon's publicity attempts because the controversy itself was relatively simple and not deserving of an individual article. -- Scorpion0422 01:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Pepsi Center and WWE. Teh Shingen (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This happens all the time; see the many times at the Metrodome where the Gophers and Twins have fun playing with their schedules around MLB playoff time, and when the Dolphins had to move games because the Marlins were on their way to or in the World Series, and 9/11, where the National Automobile Dealers Association had to shuffle their convention around because the Super Bowl was delayed to when they'd have their convention. The bottom line is, playoff games always beat smaller events. This is in almost every booking contract, and this certainly is no different. It's just that Vince McMahon doesn't like losing a date if he doesn't have to and isn't happy about it. Mention on the Pepsi Center and WWE articles is just fine. Nate • (chatter) 01:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the situations you described got much, if any, coverage in the press. The WWE/Pepsi Arena situation got covered in just about every national publication that includes sports coverage and tons of TV shows including SportsCenter, Around the Horn, and Pardon the Interruption among others (and real coverage, not just passing mention). The fact that the Pepsi Center is looking at a possible lawsuit (since WWE legally had the arena that night, the Nuggets never held the arena in case they made it this far in the playoffs) adds to it. TJ Spyke 01:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because it was the WWE which drew the short straw. If this was a group like Disney on Ice, a national touring circus, an Arena Football game or concert tour (like even the Jonas Brothers), the prinicples would talk behind the scenes, make the proper arrangements and payments for shuffling everything around and make an announcement in a quiet press release that 'event B has been moved to accomodate event A on date B'. Vince McMahon meanwhile is at the heart of everything a showman. He knew this would get publicity and rode the train all the way to the station with hyperbole. Denver will quietly get a new RAW date, the WWE will be welcomed back with open arms and the Pepsi Center management will reap probable heavy attendance and concessions sales.
As for your assertion that it got heavy mention on all those ESPN shows...they need something to fill 3-4 minutes, and this is perfect to talk about. There's no other reason this is on ESPN's radar other than it beats talking about how bad the Cubs are doing or rehashing how echoy Yankee Stadium's empty seats are once again. Nate • (chatter) 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • WWE is a huge draw, all those other ones would not get as much attention and they would have just left. WWE actually could have just held firm and told the arena that they were gonna hold Raw in the Pepsi Arena and legally the Nuggest wouldn't have been able to do anything since WWE had a signed contract for tonight while the Nuggets didn't. WWE didn't ask for all the free publicity, but it's obvious they welcome it (since otherwise the mainstream media wouldn't care where Raw is on any given week). As for your second comment, the only reason some shows cover these kidnappings to get articles is because talking about a cute blond teenager being kidnapped fills up time. This has received a significant amount of real coverage. This article passes all 5 general criteria of WP:N and thus should be kept. Maybe those voting Delete should show how it's not notable. TJ Spyke 03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please find us other sources then, other than ESPN and wrestling fan sites. I didn't see one mention of this on the major news sites or news channels at all, and more likely than not if it was covered in Denver it was more of the 'Ticketholders for Monday's event can redeem their tickets for a full refund at the box office or retain them for a future event' variety than 'Vince McMahon is never, ever coming back to the state of Colorado again unless the Pepsi Center apologizes for being a big meanie to him'. Nate • (chatter) 07:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, well sourced, and a precedent maker.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable situation. It has received a significant amount of mainstream coverage. TJ Spyke 01:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My biggest problem with this article is that it is likely going to end up being more about the media response and tonight's episode of Raw more than it will be about the actual controversy. The current "The Denver Debacle" section is pretty much all that is needed, and could easily be merged into the Raw and/or Pepsi Center and/or History of World Wrestling Entertainment articles. -- Scorpion0422 02:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do think the article can be improved, there is more information out there about the actual situation around the event that just needs to be added. If Vince really does go through with a lawsuit like he has said he is considering I think that would add even more reasons to have the article. TJ Spyke 02:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is enough sources out there, but not enough information. This article will be left alone as soon as everything is over. We don't need another article that everyone (fanboy wrestling fans who think everything down to a win over a jobber is notable) thinks is important but will soon just be left there to sit and become nothing more than another stub. As it is now, the article has enough information that can make one little note in the History of WWE article. As I see it, we don't need another article that no one will work on to get anywhere other than C at highest.--WillC 02:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Its just a double booking, its happened before with other venues before. A section in the Pepsi Center and/or in the History of World Wrestling Entertainment will suffice. --Truco 02:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not the first time this has happened (like Mrschimpf said, this happens to the Metrodome all the time and it's a one-liner at best in the newspaper the next day), not the last time this will happen. WP:NOT#NEWS, just because ESPN fell in love with the story and McMahon's complaining to every reporter who'll listen to him doesn't mean we have to give it an article. By all means mention in the appropriate places (Pepsi Center, an appropriate WWE article, 2009 NBA Playoffs if anyone can find a logical spot, etc.) but right now I don't see the justification for an article. BryanG (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Metrodome comparison is not the same. For one thing, that gets maybe a 1 paragraph mention in the local Minneapolis newspaper. This has received significant amount of coverage in virtual every major newspaper and news site and on TV. I also doubt any of the Metrodome bumps were of a contractually booked event being illegally bumped. No Wikipedia is not a news site, but do you really think stuff like solar eclipses or half of the stuff at Portal:Current events deserve articles? TJ Spyke 05:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, I'll be personally shocked if Pepsi Center's lawyers were stupid enough not to put an out clause in their contract with the WWE, but that's besides the point. I don't see how my opinion on solar eclipses is germane here, and this is not on the level of items at Portal:Current events. Of course we're going to have articles on elections, hurricanes, major sporting events, etc. that are reported in the news. Also, I'm not seeing "virtually every major newspaper" here; for example, all I got out of a search of the New York Times is a short blurb at the bottom of a game preview. This whole thing smacks of recentism. My point about the Metrodome is that this is not a unique or even particularly rare incident that might indicate some notability. Of course if McMahon actually goes through with a lawsuit and the courts produce a new precedent, then that might warrant coverage, but that's not happened yet and it's just as likely there'll just be a quiet, behind-the-scenes settlement in a week when the media's moved on. BryanG (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just a comment on the precedent remark, what would the new precedent be? Kroenke breached their contract, a lawsuit would be pretty much open and shut with Kroenke clearly losing. It would be shocking if he won. TJ Spyke 19:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That part's more-or-less assuming that Pepsi Center's lawyers weren't idiots and put an out clause in the contract, but a judge rules against them anyway. If Pepsi Center's lawyers were idiots then I imagine you'd be right... BryanG (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see why this shouldn't of been kept on the Pepsi Center. Afkatk (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that this rates a paragraph in Pepsi Center. I can't imagine that this will ever get more than a footnote mention, if it's even mentioned at all, even a year from now. Mandsford (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It received national attention. It's a legitimate event. Philname1 (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why does it have to have it own page just put it under WWE history Supermike (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is very notable and should have its own page. Pavlen (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to either Pepsi Centre or WWE. --86.152.111.209 (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable garbage. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 18:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I say merge all that's on this article page with the Pepsi Center article and redirect this one to that section on the page and leave it that way. Crash Underride 20:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep minus the Total Nonstop Action Wrestling note. This was about the Nuggets and WWE, thus TNA is not notable. --UnquestionableTruth-- 21:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the controversy is certainly semi-noteworthy in the history of the Pepsi Center, it doesn't yet have a larger overall significance that would justify its own entry. Barring a lawsuit, this only stands as a minor blip at most in the overall histories of both WWE and the Denver Nuggets, hardly worthy of distinct notice. EvWill (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete - It's notable, yes. High profile? Yes. But is it worthy of an article all to itself? No. A mention in the Pepsi Center article, or even 2009 NBA Playoffs/Denver Nuggets Season article would be far more appropriate. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to some appropriate article. There just isn't that much to this story -- an event was scheduled for an NBA arena that turned out to conflict with a basketball playoff game, so the other event was moved. I doubt that it will seem like that big a controversy in the long run. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Storm in a teacup which is nothing more than VKM trying to make headlines. We are not a commercial arm of WWE, so delete it. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that would be good-- NBA Finals! Denver trailing Orlando 117-116! Carmelo's at the line, gotta make both shots! First one's good... then Vince McMahon runs on the court, security in close pursuit, shouting "I'll double-book YOU!" Oh wait, that's June 2009 Pepsi Center incident. Mandsford (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pepsi Center is my gut feeling. Thanks, gENIUS101 20:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge While it has received 'national attention', I really do doubt it is going to become a notable event even in six months. So what, a stadium was double booked? We ain't news and the notability of this event certainly won't be lasting. Merge for the same reason we list aircraft incidents without articles on airport pages - it's somewhat relevant to the center's article. The editors can then decide what to trim and keep there. ∗ \ / {talk} 22:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletether utter essence of trivia and violation of NOT NREWS. Nothing worth merging. DGG (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pepsi Center. I hardly think this is important or significant enough to justify a standalone article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge to Pepsi Center. While I think this event is notable, and deserves to be covered, there's just not enough to say about it to justify a separate article; it would better be covered as a subsection of that one. (I guess this can be considered a Keep !vote, but only for as long as it takes for the article to be merged.) Robofish (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pepsi Center. I've read most of the arguments, and it doesn't seem to be worthy of its own article. For what publicity Vince McMahon got from it, the skit was boring on RAW anyway. NathanJ1979 (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pepsi Center. No need for a stand alone article. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a news item at best. If there's somewhere else a briefer version of the content should go, then do that, but I'm not in favor of "merging" as what's relevant about this could be related in one paragraph or less. Croctotheface (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pepsi Center. These booking conflicts happen on occasion, with not as much publicity. I argue there are only two reasons this page even exists: first, Vince McMahon is a publicity hound and he milked it for all it was worth, and second, there was a lack of communication between WWE and the NBA over available dates. McMahon's blame of Stan Kroenke is wrong; he should have blamed the NBA office. - Desmond Hobson (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie☆S93 00:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Letter To America[edit]

Letter To America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jett Loe which resulted in a delete; the same argument's for deletion of the one also apply to the other. Aside from a nomination for the Irish Blog Awards (it didn't win) no apparent notability to raise this above any other blog/podcast. – iridescent 00:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-emptive note: this is only a discussion about the notability of the topic and its suitability for a Wikipedia article. Please, nobody bring drama from elsewhere here. – iridescent 00:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Yup, no sources at all beyond the failed award nomination equals no encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete. No coverage reliable sources of neither Jett Loe nor his podcast found. For a podcast, I expect coverage in online sources if it was notable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Drunk driving (United States). –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Drunk Driving[edit]

Wisconsin Drunk Driving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Serious POV problems, and negligible sourcing. Until It Sleeps 00:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike: are the metrics cited in the source reliable at all? People say that they do so-and-so, but what they say might be skewed by regional cultural differences - right/wrong? NVO (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this topic has potential, the entire article has to be re-written from scratch. Otherwise, delete. Hairhorn (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A mess of an article, and no reason for a separate article on the topic. If there's anything worth saying about drunk driving in Wisconsin, say it in Drunk driving (United States). Fences and windows (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked at the sources. None say anything about notability. I'm not sure if WP has a policy advising against listing the penalties for traffic violations applicable in a particular location, but common sense indicates that it is not the basis for a worthwhile encyclopedic article. Johnuniq (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into Drunk driving (United States) - there is some useful information, but probably not enough for a tiny stub; the precedent is to merge such DUI stubs into one of the larger such articles. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above.Tyrenon (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Drunk driving (United States). Contains a lot of original research; also, Wisconsin is not particularly notable for drunk driving, at least not enough for an article. There does not seem to be mergeable content in the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It Happened to Alexa Foundation[edit]

It Happened to Alexa Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Looking at the revision history, this article was created not because of the organization, but more for a controversy surrounding political commentator Bill O'Reilly. In fact, only three sentences are dedicated in even mentioning the foundation. It's just a stub article with a large segment of undue weight. Showtime2009 (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't care for this article as written, but I really think coatrack issues are better dealt with through editing rather than deletion. I would just cut the entire O'Reilly segment out. Hairhorn (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- .. that's assuming the foundation is notable at all, I'm not addressing that point. Hairhorn (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but.. I think there are concerns with the article the way it is currently written which i think have some merit, however; I see the article as 'fixable' I dont think we need to delete the article. Some trimming and re writing could be done.Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, the main contributors on this article were never really focused on the foundation itself. I mean there have only been two edits since March 31. Showtime2009 (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'mperator 00:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to coatrack purposes. I doubt that, if kept, the article will be re-written, it will stay in the form it is in now. As far as Byzerodivide, his explanation is a case of OTHERCRAPEXISTS and not a reasonable excuse. John Asfukzenski (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the WP:COATRACK concerns. If anyone think this article can be rewritten to focus on the organisation itself, rather than the O'Reilly controversy, then please do so, but I'm not convinced it's sufficiently notable for an article anyway. Robofish (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 46 Lexis/Nexis hits, only 6 of them mention O'Reilly. Coatrack issues should be dealt with through editing, not deletion. Gamaliel (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrol Men[edit]

Patrol Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable low budget movie. Article also seems to have major COI issues. Ridernyc (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice per WP:NFF, as even the director's own blog states the film, though having completed filming in April, is not yet released. I love saving 'em if I can, but this one is a tad premature. Strongly suggest it be userfied with gentle encouragement to bring it back when it gets some press. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable film that hasn't been released yet, hasn't received press coverage, etc.Tyrenon (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time To Think (Sarah Whatmore album)[edit]

Time To Think (Sarah Whatmore album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Whatmore is notabible in the past as she had hits in the then, but I nominated this as I question the notability of this album as nothing indicates its notability. When I read WP:NALBUMS, it completely failed that guideline. Donnie Park (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 00:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We're clearly looking at different articles here Otter; I see at least three reliable sources. As for the nominator's reason: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." I consider debut albums of notable individuals worthy of inclusion (especially when sources for verification exist) Multiple coverings in reliable sources is the general notability criterion WP:GNG. (Also, "Whatmore is notabible in the past as she had hits in the then" is a statement based on a false assumption. If Whatmore was notable at some point, she still is. (Notability is not temporary)) - Mgm|(talk) 12:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mgm. It has multiple sources cited, and I just added one more, an article in the Daily Mirror. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SekChek[edit]

SekChek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable computer company and/or product. Prod tag removed by an IP who claimed to have made changes to show notability. These changes (unremarkably) did not involve adding any secondary sources. Joey the Mango (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Probable conflict of interest (based on tone of article) and would need severe rewrite to stop sounding like a press release (including getting rid of that Clickpress.com reference since that site IS nothing but press releases). I have little doubt it's a fine product, but can't find any real authoritative third party references (handful of newswire references of no real note). --Quartermaster (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some additional links and revamped the references section. Hopefully that satisfies the masses. I do not wish to have the article deleted as 1) I created the article 2) i will improve it over time.--Kelly2kelly (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2009 (UT

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fits the profile, a "software and services company that develops automated computer security auditing tools and provides information security assurance services". No references outside the trade. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't know if I have to weigh in on this re-listing since I recommended delete originally ... but just in case: Not notable outside the trade. I know it's a losing battle to prune wikipedia from articles like this, but every little bit helps. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to state delete again. I've stricken the !vote. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Insufficient reliable sources covering the subject to establish notability. Of the list of references provided in the article, only a couple would qualify as reliable sources. [118] is a trade magazine article which focuses solely on the product which is good. [119] is a mention in a trade magazine. Although more than a single sentence, it is also far from substantial. Given the totality of coverage found, this is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Techinline Remote Desktop[edit]

Techinline Remote Desktop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable software product; almost no sources other than company's own site; added by a Techinline company representative, see here. Also seems promotional. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No reliable 3rd party references establishing notability, possibly spam for reasons above. Dialectric (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the author of this article, and would like to state that I have followed the same format as the other remote access products mentioned on Wikipedia (i.e. Teamviewer, LogMeIn). The article is completely neutral and does not contain one word of advertising. Instead it is written to help users of our product learn more about the technology and security we use.
    Furthermore, I have created links to the other products in our industry. We are a well recognized service in the remote desktop industry, and you can google "techinline" to see the 3rd party sources where we are mentioned. One of these is Lifehacker ([120]), where we are mentioned alongside LogMeIn.
    If you allow the article to stay, I will be more than happy to eliminate all of the official sources and use only available 3rd party references. Furthermore, I am confident that our users will help contribute to this article in the future, thereby expanding the sources further.
    Thank you and I look forward to a fair decision being made.Andrey4wiki (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mgm, thank you for the suggestion to add more credible references. I've added 2 more reliable 3rd party sources (which actually have their own articles on Wikipedia see: Softpedia). I've also removed 1 of the official website sources. This leaves only 2 official references out of the 8 in total. Please note that it would be difficult to find a Wikipedia post which does not use at least 1 official source, yet we have done our best to minimize this in our case. If anything else needs to be done, please let me know. I'm trying my best to put together an article which entirely meets the Wikipedia standards, and am willing to work on this further if needed.Andrey4wiki (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You can find information practically about anything on Wikipedia these days, and this is the nice thing about it. If it is to become a "closed club" where only limited sources and globally recognized items are allowed, it would first defy the meaning of acting as an "encyclopedic" source, and would also hurt the continued expansion of Wikipedia to be a solid and easy to read source of information, for which I personally value it. Based on what I've seen, this service has been around for 3 years and has alright references to 3rd party sources.Timofey Rodin (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because you haven't made any other edit in 18 months, I'll remind you that this is not a vote & we must make discussions within the policy and guidelines of WP. Welcome back --23:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reviews that are possibly independent are all trivial. I'm surprised this wasn't speedied per WP:CSD#G11. I do see some improvement being made, but the product does not seem to be notable yet & there are obvious COI issues. --Karnesky (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Does not meet guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Shipley[edit]

Kenny Shipley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy and prodded, but prod tag was removed without the concerns on talk page being addressed. There was nothing significant at the news/books/scholar links in the prod tag ([121]). - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no rational for notability for a mobile home businessman. If anything, the business would be more notable.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for total lack of verifiability. (We should simply disallow removal of PROD tags without any form of explanation. - Mgm|(talk) 12:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 12:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Suicide King (Album)[edit]

The Suicide King (Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is totally unsourced, unfounded and speculative. The follow-up to Relapse (album) is named Relapse 2 and it appears to me that this whole article is invented... DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. It's not even speculation, it's completely made up. Relapse 1 hasn't even come out, there's no way he has a tracklist with timecodes and release dates. How stupid could someone be to try and bullshit true fans. Come on now. Delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.21.244 (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Tag[edit]

Wolf Tag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article on a game that appears to me to have been made up one day. No relevant Google hits. I considered IARing this one but, well, here I am.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 RadioU. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unleash the Music[edit]

Unleash the Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable fund raising drive for a radio station. Even if the station is notable, that doesn't make its fundraising drive notable. Any information here (of which there is little) should go into the main article. A redirect is suspect because the name is common enough to cover many fundraisers/organizations/concerts. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-noteworthy and possible spam. Hairhorn (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into parent radio article and renominate radio article if you feel it fails the notability guidelines. Cheers. I'mperator 00:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The nominator said so themselves: "Any information here (of which there is little) should go into the main article." That is a process which does not involve deletion at any point and can simply be done by being bold. - Mgm|(talk) 12:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Smashvilletalk 22:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola ROKR U9[edit]

Motorola ROKR U9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable cell phone per WP:PRODUCT. Algébrico (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you delete this, you may have to consider deleting all the other ROKR pages, or - a better solution - merging them all into one page:

Motorola ROKR E1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Motorola ROKR E2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Motorola ROKR E6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Motorola ROKR E8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Motorola ROKR Z6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Motorola ROKR Z6m (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

... unless the U9 is really significantly less noteworthy than the others, which is certainly possible. Hairhorn (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all into ROKR, which is currently a disambiguation to them (and a Japanese airport). Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All into ROKR, possibly expand any significant coverage into separate article. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (along with the E8, E6 (and its many unfree images, Z6, Z6m) for the same reason). The entry(ies) fails WP:PRODUCT guidelines and has no reliable sources I can find, a promotions site isn't reliable and motorola themselves aren't independent. If I came across this first, I'd have speedy deleted it as blatant spam. E1 and E2 have potential. - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • E1 should definitely stay, or be the focus of the merged article. It was Apple's first attempt at a cell phone. Hairhorn (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good example of why the entirety should be merged. Later models/revisions can touch upon revisions or notable instaces, but I don't think there is enough merit for each one to get a separate article. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all. The line is notable; individual iterations in a given line of products don't always measure up even if the general product does. I think this is a case where while the entire line is notable, we don't need seven or eight articles for it.Tyrenon (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all or Keep all per Tyrenon and notices about out-item notability. I also comment about Hairhorn. If one of it deleted, why others deleted? The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into Motorola ROKR. Mukadderat (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Koltun[edit]

Julian Koltun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Google reveals little. I see no indication that the subject is worthy of inclusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not surprised. If all that happened in the early 1980s, there's not going to be much online information. Someone with Polish language skills should look for paper sources. - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does this have anything to do with Juliancolton? Xclamation point 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As someone with Polish language skills I was hoping to be able to ride to the rescue here, but, rather bizarrely, it appears that someone with Malay language skills is needed to evaluate the only potential source that I could find online. I would add that I was living in Poland at the time when the article subject was active, and have some recollection of the case, but, of course, that doesn't count for anything when it comes to verifiability or notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's anything there that we haven't already got. Note that only the first line is about Julian Koltun; the rest are about other Polish serial killers. As for the sentence that is about him, it translates as "Julian Koltun, raped and murdered many women in Eastern Poland". It's a false lead. Soap Talk/Contributions 23:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there doesn't appear to be enough sources to satisfy BLP requirements or improve the article past its current stub status. momoricks 02:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climaction[edit]

Climaction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn. Most sources listed on the page only mention this organization in passing, and are not rs. F (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Dreamcast games. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Ring[edit]

Planet Ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can find no significant coverage or discussion of this game; it seems not notable to me. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sheikh Abdullah of Kashmir. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ragho Ram Koul[edit]

Ragho Ram Koul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article about a person whose only claim to fame is being the ancestor of a much more famous person. Google gives a grand total of 8 ghits. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the great-grandson's page; nn on his own, but rds are cheap. JJL (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect ghits? :P Are you sure you don't mean "git"? :D Cheers. I'mperator 00:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect There's clearly not enough information to build an article with. The redirect would point readers to the info we do have about this person. - Mgm|(talk) 12:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orita.Sinclair School of Art and New Media[edit]

Orita.Sinclair School of Art and New Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete thinly veiled spam for a nn on-line school. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The entry obviously contains spammy language, but that is something that could be solved without deletion. The school is not some online course, it has an actual building according to the school itself and the news section[122] suggests they've been covered by reliable sources. This needs a closer look than the nominator suggests. - Mgm|(talk) 08:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Is Orita.Sinclair seriously the official name of the school? OritaDOTSinclair? sources vary [123][124]. I would think a move to NO DOT would be in order for en.wiki. (no !vote at this time) Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 12:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although a great looking org. to be with (I browsed the who's who photos), I think it lacks in reaching to get past Notability at "These schools are considered notable by virtue of such factors as notable alumni, community importance, notable sporting and scholastic successes."...at least, I didnt recognise any names amongst them here. Delete Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie☆S93 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F Are_weblogs_reliable_sources?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_26&oldid=1142643782"