Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 May 29 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 no consensus. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Distorted View Show[edit]

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

The article is largely a copy of the article on the show's own wiki, Freakipedia. It's so chock-full of advertisement, unneeded data, and just a total mess. I tagged it for deletion for basically being advertising. Eik Corell (talk) 13:42, 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) 08:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Shops[edit]

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

Most of this content was copied from Chicken shop which was just deleted. G4 declined by PeterSymonds. Original research, unlikely to be sourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For the record, I've now seen three admins, off wiki, say that the deleted content was not an exact copy. No comment on this article just yet. Syn 23:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism and dictionary definition. If it can be referenced, maybe consider for wictionary. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 23:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • G4 decline was correct, article is in no way related to the previously deleted article, subject is broadly related and title is similar but that's as close as it gets. Nick (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Did somebody say WP:OR? Where are the references? Vicenarian (T · C) 00:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am currently searching for references, I found one according to the comment on the page. Other than that, third party references seem a little difficult to find. Antonio López (desu) 00:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back, that one reference I found is bad. Antonio López (desu) 00:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, have looked for 3rd party references and have not been able to find any reliable sources for this term. A new name 2008 (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonverifiable notability of the expression. Mukadderat (talk) 05:25, 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 speedily deleted (A7) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Wyszynski[edit]

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

Vanity page of a nonnotable person - Altenmann >t 23:33, 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 CSD-A7 Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BB Squad[edit]

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

Non-notable club, does not qualify for anything else, let alon notability guidelines Donnie Park (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A7 Doesn't assert notability. Why do the maintenance tags already say June? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They say June of last year. Calathan (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I swear I'm going blind, even with my glasses. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:49, 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. (non-admin closure) Timmeh!(review me) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CMoy[edit]

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

I'm actually not sure how to articulate why this doesn't belong here. I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. There are probably hundreds or thousands of low-wattage amplifier circuits. What makes this one special? Conical Johnson (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Weak keep. Gbook and Gscholar only returns one hit [1] which is truly passing mention. Gsearch returns more, but as I see, only blogs, forums, ebay, etc. Fails WP:V. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several different editors have worked on this article since its creation in 2004, but it's not very active, last content edit was Dec 2008. Nominee WP:N tagged it some two months ago, and I would like to give content editors more time to respond. (Changed !vote). Power.corrupts (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep sure this could probably be better sourced, but this is a notable diy amp design which has been written up in various sources. blogs don't fail wp:v if they are produced by an established expert on the topic of the article riffic (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no WP:OR, no false, misleading or otherwise controversial info in the article, it's WP:NPOV, factual, the style clearly encyclopaedic - and I would like to keep it. I could just not establish WP:V myself - and that could be due to haste, I e.g. did not pay great attention to the external links. Can you present some credible arguments, that WP:RS could be found somewhere? Power.corrupts (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's reliable secondary sources out there, like this [2]. They just need to be added to the article. Gigs (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems quite well known in tech circles, being mentioned by Wired for instance.[3]. Review here:[4] There's an article about it in this magazine. Fences and windows (talk) 02:06, 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. Jamie☆S93 23:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnegat Fund Management[edit]

Barnegat Fund Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Little claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Total of 45 non-wiki ghits, none of which shows notability; zero gnews hits. Prod contested by new editor who cut most of the article but did not address notability issues. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional, no real claim of notability either. isn't this a {db-spam} candidate? Hairhorn (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I declined a speedy as empty at an earlier stage, but thee is no evidence to be found for notability. DGG (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A brochure for an investment fund. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an advert for a non-notable company. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I couldn't disagree with you all more. If this article should be deleted, then so should these:
  • Soros Fund Management
  • The Children's Investment Fund Management
  • Bridgewater Associates
  • Citadel Investment Group
  • D.E. Shaw & Co.
  • Fortress Investment Group
  • Long-Term Capital Management
  • Man Group
  • Renaissance Technologies
  • Amaranth Advisors

Nothing in this article is promotional or solicitous. There are only facts and descriptions about what Barnegat is trying to do to provide steady returns.--Justinlexington (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 16 ghits and one in news? There isn't anything there that changes my mind. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if it was notable, where are the sources?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 19:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable company that doesn't meet WP:CORP and, probably more important, at least part of the article is a copyvio of www.treue.com/styles.html Yintaɳ  20:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Linked article has been removed. Reference this archive.org cache instead.R.Vinson (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP there is plenty of coverage on this hedge fund an others o Reuters[5] news wires. People interested in finance could be very interested in the story of Barnegat Fund.--Justinlexington (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only need to vote "keep" once, and if you have links to reliable independent sources, then I suggest you add them to the article. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP if you have access to a Bloomberg Terminal then you can see all the news stories written about this hedge fund and others similar to it.--Djbarnes (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC) — Djbarnes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KEEP KEEP KEEP Don’t be so quick to nominate this for deletion. It is obviously under construction and incomplete and can be improved. Plus, I’m very interested in learning about the often secretive hedge fund world. Lots of times, any published info on hedge funds is in expensive financial industry periodicals that common folks like me don’t have access too. Leave this article and other hedge fund articles in place so that we can all be better informed about them.--FredBund (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC) — FredBund (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hedge fund strategies are a valid article when properly referenced and not attached to a company entry. R.Vinson (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how do I insert this news article that mentions Barnegat's performance "Pensions & Investments" 'Many hedge fund strategies reach positive territory in Q1' [6]--FredBund (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That article mentions "Man Barnegat Fund Ltd" - do we even know that it's the same thing as Barnegat Fund Management? Even if it is, this reference alone does not provide the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources that Wikipedia requires for inclusion. I will add it to the article as an external link. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Barnegat Fund was formerly known as "Man Barnegt Fund Ltd" try toogling either one and you'll get to the fund's home page.--Justinlexington (talk) 21:36, 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 both articles. - KrakatoaKatie 00:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

María Amelia López Soliño[edit]

María Amelia López Soliño (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is just for the "oldest blogger" (at that time), which is not that notable. Subsequently we will get more of these as the old ones die off, and new ones appear. To say it's special that an old person can use a computer, is rather ageist. I could easily make a page for my father who was programming a ZX spectrum in 1990 at the age of 87. It's just not notable. I originally PRODed the article, but the page creator asked if I would be willing to change to AfD instead  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the subject is very similar:

Olive Riley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can you let the creator of the Olive Riley article know that you've included the article in this nomination? --Canley (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the other way around. Entries in Recent deaths ultimately survive only if a WP article is created and it passes any notability challenges. WWGB (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, and in fact, she should be removed from Deaths in 2009 if she's not notable, which seems to be the case. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added her to the obit section because her death was mentioned in USA Today's "Pop Candy" column. That mention was brief, but it did include a link to an obituary -- and I used that as a reference, and Mr. Hammer should have looked at it before he said there was no coverage in third party sources.SPNic (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The obit seems to be the only coverage she got. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Olive Riley, abstain on María Amelia López Soliño. Riley was covered in multiple non-trivial sources both prior to her death and following it, thereby meeting the primary notability criterion. If the nominator's father received similar coverage for programming a ZX Spectrum, then I would welcome an article on him. --Canley (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Canley, do you mind if I ask what you mean by "the nominator's father...". I really do not get what you mean, but it doesn't sound like it is in accord with WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF.
(s)he means my father (see my text at top). Dad would have loved a page on himself, but I could not cite any refs. I was just trying to show that the use of a PC can apply to someone of any age, and we should not be ageist by making pages for the older PC users.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no disrespect or offence meant at all, Ron, hope you didn't take it that way but it looks like you didn't. --Canley (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offence taken.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on María Amelia López Soliño. WP:NOTNEWS applies here, and the article about her is really just news coverage of her recent death; there's no evidence of lasting notability there. Weak Keep on Olive Riley, who seems slightly more notable (e.g. she had a documentary made about her). I also note that while both of these people were described as 'the world's oldest blogger', only one of them can be, and that title would seem to conclusively belong to Riley. Robofish (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request that perhaps voters here re-review the article in light of substantial additions made to the article. There appears to be no concensus. I am not attached to this article (although it appears others have become so, ironically) and as I stated before I will not contest non-notability. Thus I am not voting but I just wanted to express my opinion. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:06, 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) 08:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MacKenzieHeartsu[edit]

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

Insufficient sources. Sources are all flaky or PR Newswire. Includes a huge chunk of OR tagged since 9/07 with nothing fixed, a search for better sources turned up nothing. YTMND is the second hit. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:17, 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 speedy delete. Mmm, chicken. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken shop[edit]

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

It would be nice if there were a speedy criterion to cover this mess. I'm praying for SNOW. - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete probably not enough reliable sourcesSallyRide (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have WP:SNOW? Vicenarian (T · C) 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G1 as nominated by me a while ago. ukexpat (talk) 22:27, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VT iDirect[edit]

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

Declining db-spam speedy because two people shouldn't be making this call, there's a lot going on here, but taking to AfD because I believe a solid majority wouldn't see a great deal of difference between this company's brochure ([8]) and this article. There were copyright problems, the article creator worked on them and contacted OTRS, and the article was restored by Moonriddengirl. I'm hoping that additional work will be done and we can keep the article, but not in its present state. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't top post please. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I'm mainly doing is taking a guess about how this article will be received in this discussion; I could be wrong, let's wait and see. In the meantime, read WP:NPOV. - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD isn't cleanup, folks. The purpose of AfD is to decide whether this title should be a redlink on Wikipedia, and that's all it's for.

    The idea that you can bring an article to AfD so that other people will do a lot of work researching the sources and fixing the problems is a fallacy that needs to be challenged every time it surfaces.

    WP:BEFORE says quite clearly that where the article's imperfect or a stub, AfD is for evaluating its potential rather than its current content.

    I do see the concern about copyright, but it belongs on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems, not here.

    Speedy close under WP:SK ground 1.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe I've committed that fallacy, since a number of admins and taggers would have had no problems with a db-spam speedy deletion of this article in its current form. It can't be a speedy keep and a speedy delete at the same time. The theory is that, for contributions with COI (which is clear here) and which read like a brochure, Wikipedians have decided that in many cases, throwing them away rather than improving them is exactly what we want to do. However, I believe there is notability here, and if either the article creator can get up to speed in a hurry on WP:NPOV, or new editors (which is the purpose of bringing this to WP:AfD) will inject some neutrality into the article, then I hope a speedy deletion won't be necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dan, I'm sorry, but your reply makes it seem even clearer to me that the purpose of this nomination is to try to impose a deadline on other people to get the material fixed. Isn't that right? And if so, isn't it an attempt to use AfD as cleanup? If there's more to this, then I'm missing it completely.

    If you were challenging to the article's notability, sourcing, or verifiability then I'd see something to discuss, but you don't seem to be. All I see is a challenge on WP:NPOV (which, I think, means "rewrite it so it's neutral", not "bring it to AfD") and a challenge to its copyright status (which, I think, belongs on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems, though I must say that it was Moonriddengirl who restored it and I tend to take her view about copyright as gospel because of her expertise in that field).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's possible, but there's a more practical point of view: if I didn't AfD this, but instead went in and made some cosmetic changes designed to make it more attractive to Wikipedians, I think there would be an argument that I would only be doing a coverup of the problem (COI, db-spam) rather than fixing the problem. This is also a very technical subject, so having people like me fiddle with the tone of the article is not likely to improve the content, and could easily make it worse. And if I don't change it much and just throw it back into the pond, given how many taggers and admins feel about db-spam, the article would be likely to sink without a trace. Normally that would be fine, but since I know the article creator has been responsive, fixing the copyvio and dealing with OTRS, I'm hoping they'll continue to be responsive. There's a shaky consensus, I think, for the principle that, except for db-attack and db-copyvio, any admin can decline any speedy and bring it to AfD instead, as long as they're ready to make a case for why giving the article more time might lead to an improvement. That principle wouldn't mean much if such articles could be automatically turned away from AfD by WP:SK. Having said all that ... which is a damn good argument, if I do say so myself ... if people are uncomfortable tackling db-spam brought to AfD, and if this doesn't work for any reason (including a WP:SK close), then I'll just have to find another way to deal with the problem ... probably db-spam, I'm afraid. It's always allowed in cases of COI. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But this article should be a bluelink on Wikipedia.  :) The subject's notable, there are sources, a good article could be written with this title, so WP:BEFORE applies. QED.  :)

    I'll add the {{expert}}, {{advert}} and {{coi}} tags to address your concerns.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11; it's blatant advertising with or without an OTRS-logged release. If that isn't acceptable, delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING; while AfD is not cleanup, WP:NOT is still a valid deletion rationale, and this article fails it. If the article is cleaned up to the point where WP:NOTADVERTISING doesn't apply, consider my !vote "speedy keep". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, I cleaned the article up somewhat today to force it into compliance with the various manuals of style. However, I believe all that will come of this is the case which Dank mentioned above, that it's just covering up the issue of the content's obvious failure of WP:CSD#G11. The article still would require a fundamental rewrite before it would be acceptable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Blatant spam; OTRS is not a license to spam Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G11) – I'm sorry, but this clearly falls under wikispam. Depending on how you read it, it's either a clear attempt to advertise or act as a PR piece. Neither is acceptable here. MuZemike 02:54, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barney B. Rasor[edit]

Barney B. Rasor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable subject per WP:BIO. The military decorations listed, while admirable, do not meet the requirements for notability. Created by an editor who has created several biographies of friends and family members. Drawn Some (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say keep for only one reason. Mamurra and Titus Pullo. That his military record was important enough to be noted in a book makes him the modern equivalent of these two. Therefore, it should stay. --Genovese12345 (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sources aren't sufficient to meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the awards he received, this man is notable as first African American to serve as command sergeant major of the Southern European Task Force. Varbas (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. DreamGuy (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 'Notability' is dependent on the availability of sources, not how admirable we think someone is. Did Mr Rasor's appointment receive a significant level of coverage in independent reliable sources? Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still have to say keep. Rasor was apparently a prominent enough African-American that he was also featured in an edition of Jet Magazine in 1966. [[9]]. I will once again reiterate that if Pullo and Mamurra are mentioned solely because they are mentioned in a history of military campaigns, I don't know why this is any different. The only thing that seperates this is era. And, in the case of Rasor, he did hold a high level enlisted command position, meaning he was probably of far greater importance to the American Army than Pullo was to the Roman legion. --Genovese12345 (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed your second "Keep" to "Comment", you can't !vote more than once. Drawn Some (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Rasor is only mentioned in passing in that article - this isn't "significant coverage" as required by WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO; no significant coverage in reliable sources. We can't just say 'being the first African-American sergeant major of the Southern European Task Force makes him notable'; we have to prove that with references in reliable sources, and here they simply don't exist. Robofish (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Robo. No significant coverage in reliable sources to support claims to notability, thus fails WP:BIO. لennavecia 18:57, 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 per WP:SK, clear consensus and nominator withdrew as article has been greatly improved (NAC). American Eagle (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Arthur Stroud[edit]

Kenneth Arthur Stroud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author. Google searches return no reliable sources. Neither do Google News Archive searches. Cunard (talk) 21:35, 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) 08:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Gilman Street[edit]

Live at Gilman Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This live EP has no coverage in third-party, reliable sources, and it has not been listed on any major music charts. Therefore, it fails WP:NALBUMS. In addition, it is very possible this is not even an official release. Timmeh!(review me) 21:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because I hate Green Day with a passion, they make my ears bleed because it hasn't been covered in third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:46, 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) 08:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live Tracks[edit]

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

This live EP has no coverage in third-party, reliable sources, and it has not been listed on any major music charts. Therefore, it fails WP:NALBUMS. Also, the title seems too generic for this to redirect to the band's article. Timmeh!(review me) 21:22, 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 deleted per Dank, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan Airways Flight 1336[edit]

Uzbekistan Airways Flight 1336 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

notable? Highest Heights (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article states nothign which makes this flight sufficiently notable Passportguy (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#A1 (insufficient context). —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs)
Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#A1 (insufficient context). So tagged. Vicenarian (T · C) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second that WP:PUTEFFORT. Vicenarian (T · C) 22:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, but as always, I'll be happy to re-create if consensus changes. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 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) 02:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tune in, Tokyo...[edit]

Tune in, Tokyo... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This live EP has no coverage in third-party, reliable sources, and it has not been shown on any major music charts. Therefore, it fails WP:NALBUMS. Timmeh!(review me) 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "May", not "will". There's no way that this can be expanded beyond a track list. The Billboard and VH1 sources are just track listings. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:50, 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) 08:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results Direct Marketing[edit]

Results Direct Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. Speedy declined. Single reference in article is a local business directory profile. GHits amount to online business directories or company press releases. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:57, 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) 08:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Wiese[edit]

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

Non-notable movie-maker. A Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources; it is the same with a Google search. None of the movies he created are notable. Even IMDb doesn't have an entry for him. Cunard (talk) 20:48, 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) 08:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Espond[edit]

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

prod removed, thus listed here. Neologism, self-invented word Passportguy (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know that existed! Yes, per WP:NEO, too. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to call WP:SNOW on this one.... Vicenarian (T · C) 21:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per WP:NEO and WP:SNOW too. Highest Heights (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see how WP:SNOW applies here because nothing has happened to the article yet. The WP:NOTDICTIONARY holds the most weight so unless some reliable sources are introduced to challenge the WP:NEO argument then I would have to recommend this article be deleted. However, if the sources are provided then per NOTDICTIONARY it should be transwiki'd to wiktionary. ZabMilenko 21:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I thought WP:SNOW was invoked to indicate something is pretty much a foregone conclusion (such as the deletion of this article) and debate isn't really all that necessary? Maybe I brought it out too soon. PS: Google it, it's already in the Urban Dictionary. Vicenarian (T · C) 21:34, 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 00:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy LaMott[edit]

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

Contested prod (you can probably guess who removed the prod if you've seen many AFDs lately). Original prod reasoning (by someone else) was "neither label nor awards are "major", no third-party sourcing, and no material relevant to any of the other criteria are mentioned." I also support deletion for those reasons. DreamGuy (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Prior to nomination this article for AfD, User:DreamGuy deleted the link to the subject's biography located at AllMusic.com, which is a reliable source that is independent of the subject. I have restored this link, and strongly support keeping this article it meets both the general notability guidelines and WP:CREATIVE. Varbas (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet investigation caught up with him... blocked as sock of a banned user, gets no votes and any of his edits can be reverted on sight by any editor. DreamGuy (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the reliable sources noticeboard discussion, AllMusic is not a reliable source, and even the minority that suggests it could be reliable in some circumstances say it should not be used as an argument for notability. Even if it were an indication of notability it'd be the only one on the article, and you need multiple, independent reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage to establish enough notability for a Wikipedia article. This article fails GNG And WP:CREATIVE, and just insisting that it doesn't without any sort of rationale isn't an actual argument for keeping. DreamGuy (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Please be aware that Varbas is currently under investigation as a possible sockpuppet of a banned user. DreamGuy (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ignoring any of the other issues mentioned above, a cursory Google news search brings up hundreds of mentions in reliable sources, with obituaries in major publications that do support many of the assertions in the article. I added a sample reference from a New York Times obituary , but there are a lot of third party sources out there. Other article issues have to be addressed, but the subject was the subject of nontrivial coverage. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails to meet any of the specific criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Cited coverage (three New York obituaries) fails to provide sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Article is almost entirely unsourced. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a New York Times obit has long been considered ample evidence of notability. Jfire (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Received media coverage beyond New York: Philadelphia, Dallas, San Antonio, St. Louis, etc. Zagalejo^^^ 04:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She sang at the White House twice for Bill & Hillary Clinton, and her posthumous album Ask Me Again was #12 on the 2008 Billboard Top Jazz albums chart - references are in the artice for those points. There's also a caberet performance venue named after her, Nancy LaMott Room, NY Daily News. --Tikilounge (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article about her dated 20 May 2009 starts, "We remember the late Nancy LaMott, one of best cararet singers ever, ..." and later quotes from the article include "In the last two years, Ms. LaMott had achieved a national reputation...", "New York Magazine voted her Best Cabaret Singer in their Best of New York issue. Even other singers routinely heaped praised on her: ..." - see article at:
Rick Busciglio (2009-05-20). "We remember Nancy LaMott". examiner.com. Retrieved 2009-05-30.
Hrafn is right, I passed on using that as a source. Let's not get sloppy in our sourcing. Fences and windows (talk) 17:01, 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) 08:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Winner[edit]

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

Non-notable chef. She "has won many national recipe contests", but a Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources to confirm this. A Google search returns mostly information from user-generated sites, such as Cuisineart Stand Mixer. Cunard (talk) 20:35, 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) 08:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Second Camp Half Blood Series[edit]

Untitled Second Camp Half Blood Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased book series, rumored to maybe happen in late 2010, but there's no reliable sources to back up anything. WP:CRYSTAL violation and lots of unsourced speculation. DreamGuy (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete': No proof to back up anything in article.--(NGG) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Recreate when series becomes official. Pmlinediter  Talk 06:56, 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) 08:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Pickens[edit]

Michael S. Pickens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local politican, fails WP:Politician Passportguy (talk) 20:25, 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) 08:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMI-Partners[edit]

AMI-Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable corporation. Highest Heights (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:05, 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) 02:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenneyball[edit]

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

Contested PROD, reason was: Sport of dubious notability and questionable verifiability. Also, only useful link found via Google describes tenneyball as a bat-and-ball game: Brief description at Melrose Schools (PDF) A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That phys ed list is hardly a reliable source. All it does is list a series of games that are part of the curriculum. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from the fact that game called "Tenney Ball" was patented as a part of the United States Patent 3865371 of Feb 1975, there are no indications that the game ever became popular or even known to more than a handful of individuals outside the patent office[14]. Insufficient notability, lack of verifiable sources. — Rankiri (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition, I would like to reference this blog (of whom I do not know) that references "tennyball" as a game which is a cross of tennis and volleyball as defined here. Per blogger " I arrived, went swimming with my clothes since i totally forgot my swimmers, played tennis-volleyball. Tenneyball. or Vollis." ImFlavaFlav (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Self-published sources, like blogs, are generally not acceptable as reliable sources (see WP:SPS). This blogger does not appear to be an expert on sports or the topic of "tenneyball." Vicenarian (T · C) 04:42, 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. chaser (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swanpool Beach[edit]

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

Almost no information, maybe it's also non-notable? Highest Heights (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It exists, if you do a Google search. It just needs to be punched up a bit. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Speedy delete A7. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unfortunately it has already been nominated for speedy once and declined, no idea why, it was clearly an A1. – ukexpat (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I expect the reason that it was declined was that the article provided perfectly clear context - in fact it was nothing but context. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:44, 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. chaser (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edsel Ford Fong[edit]

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

Delete: Non-notable individual despite voluminous cruft and refs. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell he is basically a foul-mouthed, surly waiter. I wish him well, but not on Wikipedia. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In New York, Jerry Seinfeld would have called him the Soup Nazi. Eauhomme (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eauhomme. Being able to achieve any kind of celebrity as a waiter, if attested by reliable sources, is itself a sign of notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps trimming excess cruft. Ultimately, I think an article on Sam Wo Restaurant should be created (as it is a spot that has cultural/historical and literary significance in San Francisco) and the article Edsel Ford Fong should probably be merged into it (Edsel's notability is completely intertwined with his job at Sam Wo). Peter G Werner (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is more notable? Edsel Ford Fong or Sam Wo Restaurant? (and I ask this as someone who is unsure of the answer, not being a resident of SF and having only heard of Fong). Eauhomme (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Wo is more notable – Kenneth Rexroth mentions it as early as the 1930s, and its still fairly well-known today. There was a clip on the Conan O'Brian show about it a couple years ago. These cultural references pre- and post-date Edsel Ford Fong. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into an article on the Sam Wo Restaurant. Mr. Fong is not particularly notable except in the context of the restaurant, which he was in some sense a part of. The restaurant is notable on its own.Tyrenon (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Covered in RS. لennavecia 18:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because you can slip someone past criteria doesn't mean we need an article on them. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep you know what? I vote to delete a lot of non-notable BLPs for useless nobodys. This guy is A. Dead. B. Well-covered by fairly major publications (and over a period of a while) and is weirdly, oddly, uniquely famous for being a horrible, horrible waiter. C. Not likely to attract the sort of useless fancreeps that make so many articles unmaintanable. In an encyclopedia full of badly written, unsourced useless garbage that i can't get deleted because of the ARS-bots, here's a piece of well-written, well-sourced, useless americana. Keep.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reason as Bali ultimate's reason B. Revelian (talk) 18:24, 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 no consensus. Recommend something be done with this article swiftly. I can't enforce the requested time restriction on a renomination, but the article in its present form/location appears to have legitimate concerns that are unlikely to fade away. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Relevant Sections[edit]

California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Relevant Sections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Should be moved to Wikisource. My conversations with the editor who is bringing in huge quotes from the state traffic code are not encouraging. I urged him to make these edits to Wikisource, but he is unwilling to do so. I know there is an underconstruction tag on the page, but continuation of the construction does not seem to indicate this can be resolved. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am having trouble understanding what this is about. I found this article about sections of the California vehicle code that relate to bicycling a few days ago. It was marked as a stub, so I started to expand it. This is the stub condition it was in when I started. Note that it fully quoted CVC 21202, but did not discuss much about other relevant sections yet. Since the topic was sections of the vehicle code, I chose to quote the relevant part of the code that each section of the article was discussing. Frankly, I'm not sure how else this article could be written. But I'm open to suggestions. Why this should be move to Wikisource is beyond me. AFAIK, wikisource is not the place to write about sources, it's just a place to keep sources. Does wikisource even have articles at all? I can't find any. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is full of interpretation (rather pointy, and I suspect far from authoritative) of a legal document. That is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia. An article on the vehicle code should deal with its function, publication, history and possibly an overview of the sections contained therein. And that's it. It is not a users' guide, nor an advice sheet for cyclists. Constant wikilinks back to the same article are inappropriate, as are such lengthy quotes. Kevin McE (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I've shortened all of the lengthy quotes down to only the very salient (to bicycling) parts. I've left CVC 21202 and 21208 fully intact since the details in them are so critical. Is that satisfactory?
The "interpretations" are fairly well sourced, especially for an article that is marked as still being under construction. Bicycling law specialists like Alan Wachtel and Bob Mionske, the main sources in the article, are among the few authoritative people on the issue of bicycling and the law (you can google for both, if that's really an issue). If there are any particular "interpretations" or claims that you believe are problematic, please identify them.
If you think any of it reads like a user's guide or advice sheet for bicyclists, please identify the problematic sections and I'll be happy to remove advisory language, etc.
This is an ideal topic to cover in Wikipedia because there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about it in the general public, but not among authoritative sources and specialists in the field. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOT. Being a bicycle rider in CA, I can sympathize with the author/creator, but this is mostly interpretive and qualifies as original research (no citations against interpretations) and even if there are citations, it's just someone else's interpretation which would make it a manual. e.g. CVC 23109. (a) A person shall not engage in a motor vehicle speed contest on a highway. Interpretation: Since bicyclists have the same responsibilities as drivers of vehicles per CVC 21200, but not as drivers of motor vehicles, it is perfectly legal for bicyclists to draft and race on open public roads in California. This (and the entire article is like this) does not belong in an encyclopaedia.-SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I resent the implication that the interpretations are without citations, considering how hard I've worked to make sure everything is properly sourced (did you even notice?), not to mention that the article is still tagged "under construction", and that lack of some citations is hardly a reason to delete an article. By that standard over 90% of WP articles should be deleted.
Whether racing or drafting bicycles in California is legal is a perfectly legitimate question, and a reasonable issue for a general encyclopedia to address. If someone wants to know the answer to that question, Wikipedia would be more useful if it answered it than if it didn't. When all the authoritative sources agree both are legal, and none say it is not, it is appropriate for the article about bicycle law in California to state that. There is certainly nothing controversial about it - it's just not a well-known fact. I just added one more source for it, FWIW. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* It's a perfectly legitimate question. But, an encyclopaedia should not address it. As far as Wikipedia in particular, refer WP:NOT. This is clearly not a legal advice site. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the only even potentially relevant section from WP:NOT is this one:

Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain how-tos. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides and recipes.[5] If you are interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project Wikibooks.

The article does not, or at least should not, read as a how-to style manual of legal advice. If you think it does, please identify where and we can fix it. But such an easily fixed infraction hardly justifies deletion of the entire article. That this article would not belong in WikiHow or Wikibooks further illustrates my point. The topic of this article is to simply cover what reliable authoritative sources say the law in California relevant to bicycling is. It's pure encyclopedic information. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, answering the question of whether bicycle racing or drafting is legal is not giving legal advice. Legal advice involves suggesting what one should do in a given legal situation. Very different. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plea to admin - First, thank you in advance for giving this decision about an important and appropriate article the careful consideration it deserves.

I hereby plea to whatever admin makes the ultimate decision here to consider that the reasons cited in each of the Delete votes above are, ironically, reasons to Keep the article. This is because the topic of this article -- the legal rights of bicyclists -- is fraught with misunderstanding and confusion in the public at large (including, apparently, for those voting above), even though there is little if any confusion or disagreement among those who are authorities on the topic (like bicycle law attorney Bob Mionske, author of Bicycling & the Law, a major source in this article). That's what makes this article an ideal candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia, where it has been since 2004. Please consider:

  1. This is not a new article, it is almost five years old.
  2. The original objection behind this nomination was that the article be moved to Wikisource. That makes no sense. Wikisource is for, well, sources, not articles on topics like bicycling and the law. However, in hopes of addressing this concern, I have pared down some of the longer quotes of the law in the article so that only the very relevant parts of each section are displayed, rather than the entire section in each case.
  3. The reason cited by the first vote for deletion was almost the exact opposite. It was that the article was "full of interpretation". Well, yeah, but interpretation cited through reliable authoritative sources much better than the average WP article, IMHO. Even if that was an issue, lack of citations is grounds for noting that sourcing needs to be improved in the article, not that the article should be deleted.
  4. Both votes for deletion cite or refer to WP:NOT, particularly the "Wikipedia is not a user's guide" section. Yet this article is not a manual nor does it provide legal advice. It provides facts and information about what the law in California is with respect to bicyclists, and what authoritative sources say it means.
  5. The second vote cites WP:OR which illustrates how unfamiliar even cyclists are with the topic of bicycling and the law. So unfamiliar that even sourced facts and information appear to be original research to them... Wikipedia is the ideal place for such an article - so the controversial information can be properly vetted in the public and open forum that Wikipedia is.
  6. The article has been tagged as being within the scope of two Wikipedia projects: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cycling and Wikipedia:WikiProject_California.
  7. The article is still under construction (and was tagged accordingly a week or so ago). See the TODO list on the talk page. Feel free to add to it with anything that you think will improve the article.
  8. Finally, if people have objections to content in an article, shouldn't they first raise those objections on the article's talk page, and allow editors to work them out, before simply nominating the entire article for deletion? In the five years that this article has existed, there has been no discussion about its content, except that it was of "stub quality". Both projects had it rated as "stub class", so a few weeks ago I started working on improving it, and as a result it was nominated for deletion.

Thank you again. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dbratland, you seem to be suggesting, without basis, that the article in question is a fringe theory, presenting new ideas, "countering systemic bias in institutions such as academia", and/or is an effort to "right a great wrong". What are you talking about? What is your evidence for any of this?
I have read over a dozen books on bicycling and they all say the same thing about the law. The fact that the public in general has not read these books and is generally not aware of what the law is does not make it a new or fringe theory.
If this article was a how-to manual or provided legal advice, then the WP:NOT objection would apply. But the article is neither.
Wikipedia is the place to provide facts and information, including interpretations made by reliable authoritative sources in the given topic area. The references in the article form the basis for my claim that that is exactly what this article is. What is the basis for your claim that it is not?
You represent yet another person who perceives what authoritative sources on the topic agree, and have always agreed, is fact, to be "presenting new ideas" (never mind that writers writing books that address bicycling and the law have for decades been reflecting these "new ideas", consistently, without argument). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Wikipedia is not the place for "promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs... You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case." I don't think I can make it any more clear than that. The public at large, as well as the police and the courts, are "wrong" and you are using WP to bring them The Truth. It's hard not to fall into that trap if you're editing articles on topics you feel that way about.--Dbratland (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be hard not to fall into that trap, but that doesn't mean I have. Please, speak for yourself. The police and courts are wrong? What does this have to do with the article? Did you even read the article that is being discussed here? If your comments have nothing to do with the content/quality/appropriateness of the article (rather than me), I suggest they do not belong here. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with SpacemanSpiff above ... this article doesn't look at all like a good encyclopedic article. Citing the CA code in lane splitting would be sufficient to convey its encyclopedic importance. -- Brianhe (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't "look at all like a good encyclopedic article"? So now we're deciding whether to delete articles based on how they look? What kind of reason is that? And what does this article have to do with lane splitting? The legality of lane splitting is only peripherally related to the topic of this article, and it's not even mentioned in the article, nor even on the todo list for the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As mentioned above: "An article on the vehicle code should deal with its function, publication, history and possibly an overview of the sections contained therein." (emphasis mine). Born2cycle did his best to make the article better, and he sourced it better than most Wikipedia articles. I agree with Born2cycle that this is no candidate for wikisource. But currently, the article is also no candidate for Wikipedia. It is too much focussed on the details of the law, the big overview is missing. The article now is beyond repair, to get a decent article it would be best to start with nothing and build it up with "function, publication, history and possibly an overview of the sections contained therein.". --EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article on the vehicle code. That would be California Vehicle Code. This article is about the bicycle relevant sections of the CA vehicle code, and explaining why and how these sections are relevant to bicyclists in California, so of course it is focused on the details in the laws. That's the topic of this article! The "big overview" is, or should be, in California Vehicle Code. I mean, should we delete 24 (season 7) because it is too much focused on the details of season 7, the big overview is missing? I agree some history can be added - about when each section was added, but that can be done without deleting the article. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to get the point. The 24 (season 7) article should be deleted if all it contained was the plot. The article also has other things, about production, the strike, and it still needs information about how the series was received by the public. This big overview is also needed in the CVC-BRS article. If you think that this can not be added because that should be in the CVC article, then the only logical conclusion is that the CVC-BRS article does not belong on wikipedia.
About your pleas to the admin (which I am not): 1 is no reason, neither is 6. I agree on 2 and 8. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Finally something that makes sense. Thanks for that and the time you've obviously taken to give this issue due consideration.
Points taken about 1 and 2 in my admin plea list. The introduction/overview is definitely incomplete, but it is now at least slightly better than what it was two weeks ago. I agree the article is problematic and needs work. I was the one who put the under construction tag on it. I could use help improving it (and this discussion is helpful, but it would probably be much more effective if held on the article's talk page and the topic was how to improve the article, rather than being part of a debate about whether to delete it). But all this is beside the point here, where the only issue is whether the article should be deleted now.
You say, "The 24 (season 7) article should be deleted if all it contained was the plot". Don't you mean that article should be improved/expanded if all it contained was the plot? Don't you mean that it should be tagged with one or more of the plethora of maintenance warning tags we have available to us, and some articles are tagged with for months if not years before they are deleted? But to simply go straight to Afd and vote to delete it because it's not yet up to ideal standards? I just don't understand that. I would hope all of you would simply vote Keep on the grounds that, if nothing, else, this nomination for deletion is very much premature. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per SpacemanSpiff, but primarily due to WP:NOLEGAL. The tone of the current article reads like California bicyclist-friendly legal advice (...explaining why and how these sections are relevant to bicyclists in California...) verging on WP:NOTADVOCATE, not a encyclopedic neutral treatment of the subject written for a universal audience. Contrast this article with the treatment (though by no means perfect) given at Bicycle law. See WP:NOTAFORUM on plea point #5. I would tend to think Wikibooks would be a better place for this. . – Zedla (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing WP:NOLEGAL to my attention. I was not aware of that. However, I'm puzzled as to how you see what it says as a reason to delete this, or any, article, much less to be the primary reason. If anything, it supports the existence of articles like this that provide and address legal matters. WP:NOLEGAL says nothing about what should be in WP articles with respect to legal matters or anything else; it is simply a disclaimer that states that legal information in Wikipedia should not be taken as legal advice. Consider these statements from WP:NOLEGAL
  • "Wikipedia contains articles on many legal topics" - right, like the article in question here.
  • "There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained in an article touching on legal matters is true, correct or precise". - which implies that legal matters are covered in the articles.
  • "The legal information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and ..." - This implies that Wikipedia provides legal information. You know, stuff like ...explaining why and how these sections are relevant to bicyclists in California...
The opinion that this article is "not a encyclopedic neutral treatment of the subject written for a universal audience" is not substantiated. Anything in the article that violates WP:NOTAFORUM should be removed, I agree. But, again, I was very careful to only add material that is supported by authoritative, reliable sources. Even if there are some violations like that, that justifies having those tagged and potentially excised accordingly, not deleting the entire article.
I agree Bicycle law is a better article, and stands as a model for this one to potentially follow. Thanks for that input too. But this one is still under construction... --Born2cycle (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, how about giving this article a few months to improve, and, if anyone still feels it should be deleted then (say 9/1/09, is that fair?), it can be put back on the chopping block. In the mean time, please visit the article and leave your comments about how it is progressing. If nothing else, this process has served as a valuable source of suggestions on how to improve the article, and what direction it should take, attention it probably would not have gotten had it not been an Afd nominee. Thanks very much. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Bicycle law in California. That is the encyclopedic subject that this article is trying to address, not the Vehicle Code (and it's unfortunate that our article on the California Vehicle Code is still a stub). Perhaps the code quotations should be trimmed (full code section text could certainly go to Wikisource) but there is plenty of sources out there to write a neutral article about laws pertaining to bicycles in California, which are found in the Vehicle Code. Any "interpretation" of these laws that is not cited to a reliable source can be removed, but it seems to me that all this information should be verifiable. Information on the "function, publication, and history" of the laws could certainly be found and would improve this article, but such information will probably not be found online without a Lexis-Nexis account. However, a lot of information can be found about the current application of these laws, from both specialists such as Wachtel and from government sources. As such, any specific instances of original research can easily dealt with. And summarizing such sources would not make this a "manual, guidebook, or textbook" or "legal advice" any more than the article on United States open container laws, for example. Also, this is not "promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere;" the existence of reliable sources on the subject belies this claim. Nor is this article trying to "right great wrongs"; informing people on subjects of which they may have little or bad knowledge seems to be the very purpose of an encyclopedia. To any extent it is might suggest that police and courts are "wrong", perhaps it can be more neutrally worded if there is a documented controversy, or such claims removed if they can't be cited. In short, none of the problems asserted are unfixable, and the topic is encyclopedically appropriate, so I do not see a valid reason for deletion. DHowell (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I'm going to cry. Thank you!. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Bicycle law in California. I agree with DHowell's reasons, and I think that under that name, it is more logical to talk about its function, publication and history. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well-sourced topic. May need some modification to conform to various Wikipedia guidelines. Sebwite (talk) 22:33, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kidcrusher[edit]

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

Nominated for speedy but it asserts significance. No vote. Ryan Delaney talk 19:40, 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) 01:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mendel Winery[edit]

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

Article about obscure winery in Argentina. No references, and external links are the company website, a trivial mention (only in one paragraph of a short trivial article) on a publication online that looks like it's probably one of those places that just reprints press releases submitted to it (so not an independent source) and some listing on a website trying to list all wineries: trivial and not reliable for information. Need multiple, independent, reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage to establish any notability at all to be mentioned in any article, and needs more than that to have an article of its own. DreamGuy (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a consumer business making material goods and selling them under its own brand. The Wine Spectator is a reliable source, and their coverage of this winery includes not only the linked interviews but apparently several product reviews hidden behind a paywall. I removed the unreferenced tasting notes, which did seem spammy to me; perhaps a Wine Spectator subscriber could add references to the reviews. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if you consider Wine Spectator to be a reliable source, what are the other independent, reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage that would meet the multiple sources requirements for having an article? DreamGuy (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources. I do not consider one brief mention in the June 2006 issue of the Wine Spectator to be enough (even though the WS itself can be considered reliable and independent). The second source is an unnotable wine portal, and the third source provided in the company's own website! --BodegasAmbite (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a notable winery with independent and reliable sources as referred to in the article. Varbas (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has now been blocked as sock of banned user. DreamGuy (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Comment This user was determined to be using multiple accounts during a sockpuppet investigation of a user banned for a string of socks used in AFDs to give faulty reasons to keep articles. Not sure why he isn't blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Varbas (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, the investigation found that you were using multiple accounts, and made a ruling that it was possible that the account was, in fact, being used by the banned editor but that not enough info was in yet. This is not the same as a finding of "not guilty". Misrepresenting sockpuppet investigation results with fake legalese to try to sound vindicated when you are not is highly deceptive... and, curiously, a tactic that the banned editor had also used in the past. DreamGuy (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments attacking me personally are not helpful to this discussion. Please abide by your Wikipedia:Editing restrictions that have been placed on you by the Arbitration Committee. Varbas (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just alerting the closing admin to a potentially invalid !vote. They can do with that information whatever they want. DreamGuy (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But like I pointed out above, only one of the 3 sources (Wine Spectator) is independent and reliable! and it only contains a trivial entry in June 2006! The other two sources are not independent (winery's own website) and/or un-notable (wine portal). The article as it stands does not show notability, and neither does the source! --BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:33, 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, Fritzpoll (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources to meet standards for WP:ORG. Vicenarian (T · C) 19:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one brief mention in Wine Spectator is a very trivial mention and doesn't meet the criteria for notable referencing per WP:CORP. Even though I am a member of WP:WINE, I don't think wineries should be held to any lower standard for notability as any other business such as a local restaurant. Sure wine is awesome but even Joe's Pizza can get a trivial mention in a local paper or consumer review. AgneCheese/Wine 22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wine Spectator's coverage puts it over the line for me. I assume there must be coverage in the Argentine media -- have any of our Spanish-speaking editors made an effort to locate coverage from there? Pastor Theo (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, I have. I did a Google and Google News search and nothing comes up in reliable independent sources (apart from the trivial mention in the WS from 2006). Just brief mentions in online wines stores, tourism/travel pages, etc. --BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the wine spectator, there's this: [15] which per this: [16] would appear to be a somewhat reliable source; and this: [17] which is a blog but an unaffiliated one. It's marginal, but I think it's marginally over the bar rather than marginally under it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The first link you mention ([18]) may well be independent but the content of the mini-article (2 paragraphs) is completely un-notable! The second link, as you say, is just someone's blog, and does not provide any notable content about Mendel either. It seems clear that Mendel makes boutique quality wine and that a respected wine-maker works there, but where's the notability? There are thousands of boutique wineries out there.--BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two paragraphs is enough to be non-trivial coverage, I think. (The coverage doesn't have to be notable, and it's not apparent to me what "notable coverage" might mean; the notability criteria just say there has to be non-trivial discussion in a reliable source independent of the subject).—S Marshall Talk/Cont
  • Well, I'm afraid I disagree with your interpretation here. Firstly, WP:N says:
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
"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
2 paragraphs surely cannot be considered to be 'significant coverage'. In fact, I would consider a mere two paragraphs to be utterly trivial. Give the name of a winery and I'll find you two paragraphs written about it in an independent reliable source! The Wine-Pages site has literally thousands of articles on wineries. How can 2 paragraphs possibly be 'significant coverage'? And there can be no doubt that the 2 paragraphs do not "address the subject directly in detail"
Secondly, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "The coverage doesn't have to be notable". It's the winery (subject of the article) that has to be notable! If I had the time and the inclination, I could provide hundreds of similar non-notable wineries along with a few paragraphs from similar sources, and then where would be be? We have to draw the line somewhere! If someone could find something notable about this winery, we could keep it. I've followed up a lot of links from Google (both English and Spanish sites) and haven't come up with a single item of intersting or notable news.--BodegasAmbite (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's agree to differ. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Bodegas is right. Over at the Wine Project, we've done a lot of soul searching in trying to evaluate notability of wineries. When it came down to it, we realized that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a wineguide and we must hold wineries to at least the same standards as local mom & pop pizza joints. Any restaurant can get local reviews and passing trivial mentions in larger publications but according to WP:N and WP:CORP those extremely local and trivial coverages are not enough for every local restaurant and pizza joint to have a wikipedia entry. Just because a winery makes wine, doesn't make them any different than these other local business. AgneCheese/Wine 14:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If it has been profiled by both Wine Spectator and Wine Pages (which has serious wine writers contributing, rather than being a blog), I think coverage would be OK; their interest seems to be partially based on the winemaker's established track record. However, since the article is fairly devoid of content, it has fairly little encyclopedic value at current, so it's a weak keep. Tomas e (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Wine Spectator coverage of a new venture, or the activities of a winery founder, doesn't confer notability of the winery. It isn't much different than The Los Angeles Times profiling a new restaurant that just opened. While Wine Spectator may occasionally profile a notable winery, not all wineries profiled in Wine Spectator are notable. I am highly skeptical of using an appearance in Wine Spectator as a litmus test for notability. The same is true for coverage in local or regional media. The content-free nature of the article is another strike against it, hence my strong recommendation to delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Apologies to the article's author, but I have to agree with Amatulic. After having gone through this very process and conversations myself I can assure you it's easily confusing for any beginner. What makes a winery "notable" is not the amount of reviews it receives or how high those reviews are. The only saving grace would be having significant article coverage across multiple publications. If your winery is a cover story, or featured article of some type, for a national publication wine or otherwise, that makes it more notable. More over, this article cannot be about what to expect from the winery, but based on accomplishments the winery has already achieved. Think of Wikipedia like a history text book, not every solider in the civil war will get mentioned, only the most key or "notable" players. Likewise not every winery can be mentioned, only the most key or "notable" wineries in the industry.RonaldMcWendys (talk) 18:16, 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 let it snow, let it snow delete. Jamie☆S93 22:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest cities by the end of each century that did not exist by the beginning of that century[edit]

List of largest cities by the end of each century that did not exist by the beginning of that century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pointless list that would seem to rely heavily on synthesis of other articles or original research. Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very much would rely on WP:SYN. Also, what is the point? And why the supercalifragalisticexpealong name? Vicenarian (T · C) 19:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As mentioned the idea came from Brasilia#Demographics. What is needed is to expand the list. There are already entries such as List of largest cities throughout history. Montemonte (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Each article must be considered on its own merits. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we debating another one here? Mandsford (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up List of largest cities throughout history. I thought you were using the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but I think I misread you. My apologies. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Mandsford (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But I hope that worrying, about what other people might think, will not deter someone from contributing. Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable, and hardly useful for anyone wanting to study urbanism. Ottre 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft and per Drawn Some . feydey (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I wrong in invoking WP:SNOW here? Seems like I've been doing that a lot. Vicenarian (T · C) 13:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, clear listcruft and too incomplete to be of any use. Tris2000 (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of the speedy deletion criterion does this fall under? –Juliancolton | Talk 16:35, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camryn Kiss[edit]

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

non-notable pornographic actress. First criteria of WP:PORNBIO is not satisfied as she didn't win nor have nominations in multiple years. Trivial coverage in American porn trade journals, AVN and XBIZ. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is the first criteria supposed to mean that they must have won during multiple years or been nominated in multiple years? Or does it mean that they must have won just once or have been nominated in multiple years? To me, it could be read both ways and I was reading it the second way when I contested the prod. Dismas|(talk) 11:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The second way. That award listed is just an award nomination. She has not won anything yet and I believe she's already retired. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:30, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't have a bio without sources. Rd232 talk 00:13, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnet mondal[edit]

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

Contested speedy. Mondal is an active self-promoter - it seems he imagines he's surpassed figures like Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Ramprasad Sen and Rabindranath Tagore to become the national poet at age 17. Regardless, we're under no obligation to help him further his quest for recognition, something reliable secondary sources have conspicuously failed to accord him. Biruitorul Talk 19:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • But the mentioned links in the article are true.And he does have many published works.And his poems too are very nice so this article should be kept.And if you want to delethis article then you must delete the article of Biplab Majeeand many others which do not site any reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.162.37 (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC) — 59.93.162.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Speedy Delete I just read a poem of his. j/k. First I've heard of this person and there are some notable poets in India currently who are featured in the media pretty often. His book of poems, cover price $1. If I remember correctly, and there should be some listing somewhere, I just haven't been able to find it, "National Poet" is not a title bestowed in India any longer. I've gone through 10 pages of Google search looking for some credible references, nothing at all. This should clearly be an A7. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a vanity page with unreferenced tall claims. Absolutely nothing here. Salih (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Claims to have recieved a number of awards but there are a few problems: none of the awards listed are referenced. Some of the honours are mere letters of appreciation and cannot be counted as honours. Other so-called awards are from small district level organizations which are not difficult to qualify for. Claims to be Listed in the 2000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 21st Century of International Biographical Centre,Cambridge,England,2008. and 3 other awards from the same institution. Here's the Breaking news: The article on International Biographical Centre states: The IBC specializes in creating "awards" and offering them to many.[3] Awards cost the recipient between US$500 and $1495 each, depending on its claimed prestige.[4]--Deepak D'Souza 09:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete, nowhere in the article it is mentioned that he is a national poet of India.In some google pages it may be mentioned but they may be created by different persons.I have heard him in my city and he truly deserves to be here.In his weblogweblog of sonnet also, there are pictures where he have been flashed in the media and he also have pictures with eminent poet like Subodh Sarkar who inaugurated his book.So he should be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.245.204 (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC) — 59.93.245.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
CommentDon't you just love Geolocate. Both IP addresses resolve to Calcutta , the capital of Mondol's home state. Ignore above vote --Deepak D'Souza 17:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donot delete: The IP adresses are different though from Kolkata.Mondal is a poet fom west bengal ,so its natural that people there know him well.Ihave also seen hs book inauguration program at Kolkata press club where eminent and high ranking personalities appreciated his poems.Its tue that his weblog has also prrofs along with photographs.So my request is not to delete this article.There is one saying poets and pigs get recognition ater their dath.Wikipedia should help emerging poets so that people may know them and compared to mondal's age his achievements are great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.86.85 (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC) — 220.225.86.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. No dear, I did not ask that above vote be ignored because it was from West Bengal. There is no such rule. The reason is that there is a very good chance that the three anonymous edits are done by the subject of the article itself. Now watch the denials come in. On second thoughts, don't even bother, we see that pattern all the time. Also please understand that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Changing IP addresses and posting "do not delete" wont help.The final decision depends on Wikipedia's rules of notability. Awards from questionable sources(that too unreferenced), do not help. Mondol's achievements, you say?? two books(with unknown circulation) do not make a poet; nor do paid awards. And Wikipedia is not here to help upcomming poets or writers or researchers. --Deepak D'Souza 04:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis one is from Calcutta too. Our bard tries too hard (:-) Hey I can write a bit of poetry too!!) I did a search for all the names mentioned in the article and guess what none of them , apart from our Shakspeare has a wikipedia article. That settles how important this Poetry festival is to the International Poet community. --Deepak D'Souza 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poet of the Day? Lol...... whatever. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I do not buy the notability of this person at all. Vanity, nothing more. Wikipedia is not here to promote poets. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing but dubious claims. Hekerui (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until he becomes notable according to multiple reliable third-party published sources. Priyanath talk 04:54, 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 no consenus, but leaning to keep. There are some decent arguments on both sides, though there is a bit too much on whether the article is useful. I see no consensus and the weight of argument is fairly even - though The Transhumanist's argument is pretty compelling, which is why I see this as leaning to keep.--Kubigula (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Internet-related terminology[edit]

Glossary of Internet-related terminology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Incomplete list of original research items and opinion (see PHP for example). Not factual or NPoV. https://www.detroitsci.com/ (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, putting anything useful in the Wiktionary. These terms are all OR or a condensed version of the full article. This doesn't appear useful. Greg Tyler (t • c) 18:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdefs. Eusebeus (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Glossaries are enhanced lists. Lists like this one, that have been enhanced with annotations to make them more useful for selecting topics to browse, are not subject to deletion as if they were dictionary definition stubs. Glossaries are an exception to the dicdef policy, and are mentioned in the usage guide section of that policy. Glossaries are a type of list, are part of Wikipedia's content system in which they serve as annotated menus or tables of contents to a subject's coverage on Wikipedia, and they are covered under the lists and stand-alone lists guidelines. Glossaries even have a Manual of Style page devoted to them. Glossaries are extremely useful for browsing. My favorite one is Glossary of philosophical isms. When you find a glossary, please rename it to "Glossary of..." and make sure it is listed at Portal:Contents/List of glossaries. Thank you. The Transhumanist 02:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Transhumanist. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Glossaries can be very useful. The manner in which they're organized makes them, in my opinion, sort of the bridge between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. If the consensus policy was to exclude them I would personally disagree but go along with it, but as Transhumanist has pointed out, they are permitted. --Icarus (Hi!) 07:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted, glossaries are a type of stand-alone list. That said, the lead section should be improved, and items without sources and notability established elsewhere (I'm lookin' at you, Copypasta) may need to be removed. Cnilep (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suppose a good encyclopedic glossary could be written. This isn't it, and there's nothing here worth keeping while we wait for someone to start it off correctly. Powers T 12:42, 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) 01:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of LSAT Instruction Providers[edit]

List of LSAT Instruction Providers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not see how this passes WP:NOTDIR and it might also fail WP:NOTHOWTO. MBisanz talk 17:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect – To LSAT – It is a natural fit. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 18:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respectfully disagree. The LSAT article provides information on the LSAT itself. The purpose of the list of LSAT instruction providers is to keep the LSAT article uncluttered, while providing a resource for those seeking LSAT instruction. A google search on "lsat prep" will not easily discover a list of LSAT prep courses (try it). Furthermore, if you look at a similar article on the SAT, you will see that it has a small section entitled "Test Preparation". This is inferior because (1) it clutters the SAT page when it is not really about the SAT itself, and (2) there is not enough space to list all of the SAT providers. The result is that only a few are listed with no rhyme or reason. That is why a similar section on the LSAT page has been deleted. The best solution is to have a dedicated page.--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you be more specific? What specific category do you believe this falls under? It does not appear to fall under any of subheadings 1-6 on the WP:NOTDIR list. Please explain. Furthermore, I note that a list of LSAT prep courses is no different than a list of law schools or a list of restaurants. They are all lists of entities that sell a service. If this article is to be deleted, then Lists_of_law_schools and List_of_restaurant_chains_in_the_United_States should also be deleted, along with many others. The need for a list like this one has been repeatedly discussed on the LSAT discussion page. --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested by Shoesssss. Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many LSAT instruction providers. Should they ALL be listed on the main LSAT page?--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment – Why not start with the more notable and reputable ones. With a child that just graduated and passed the bar, I know there are really no more than a handful of truly reputable instruction providers. In this light, the list should not be excessively long and/or unwieldy. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 20:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to be specific and tell us which companies are and aren't "truly reputable" in your eyes? Isn't the goal of Wikipedia to provide as much useful information as possible? Deleting the small/medium test prep companies only serves to preserve oligopolies. I don't think that helps anyone. Why not simply let the list continue to exist? That way it doesn't interfere with the main LSAT article, and the list can be as comprehensive as possible without being crammed into a place where it doesn't belong..--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment – Why not start out smaller and see if it grows to a position that it does require its own article. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I tried that, it was deleted. Check the history on LSAT--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Your links were not deleted, but rather your comments. Which in all fairness, they deserved to be removed, in that they were un-sourced and un-referenced. Please do not play semantics, but rather state your case in an unbiased manner and not through rose-colored glasses. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 01:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    'Comment - Hey, I have an idea. Since you are apparently an expert on LSAT preparation (by virtue of your child having taken it), why don't you just add all of the "truly reputable" instruction providers yourself?--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Never claimed to be an expert, but I am more than happy to contribute. Regarding what is reputable and notable we do have guidelines to follow. (By the way, just click on the blue link, it will bring you to the guidelines). Personally, I believe the information is a good fit with the current article LSAT and would be an informative addition. Hence, my Merge/Redirect opinion. However, if you would prefer to fight an imaginary windmill go for it. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? You didn't say "With a child that just graduated and passed the bar, I know there are really no more than a handful of truly reputable instruction providers."?? --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is obvious WP:NOTDIR territory. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you be more specific? Saying that something is obvious doesn't make it true. Which of the 6 subheadings of WP:NOTDIR does this fall under? And how would a list of any other educational entities (e.g. everything in Lists_of_law_schools) not also fall under the same rule?--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a list of external links intended to promote businesses that provide a service for a fee. This is exactly the kind of thing that NOTDIR is intended to prevent. In addition, such a list fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTLINK. What do you find unclear here? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you refuse to explain how it falls under WP:NOTDIR. OK. I could see the argument that this falls under WP:NOTLINK, but that is the first time you (or anyone else) has raised that issue. So lose the attitude, d-bag. --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a list of external links intended to promote businesses that provide a service for a fee. This is exactly the kind of thing that NOTDIR is intended to prevent. How can I be more specific than that? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 14:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTDIR has 6 subheads. You could pick one and explain how this list fits. Merely stating that "This is exactly the kind of thing that NOTDIR is intended to prevent" does not explain how "this" fits within any particular language in the NOTDIR guideline. Basically, instead of focusing on the "intention" of the guidelines and the list I created, you could focus on content. That would be more helpful.--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (3) obviously. You are quickly heading towards WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Arguing with every single person to justify a viewpoint that only you find objectionable is not the proper way to defend an article. Do you have a vested interest in one of the companies in the list? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, you finally pick a specific section after all this argument, and then simultaneously accuse me of "refusing to get the point"? You can't accuse someone of "refusing to get the point" at the same time that you FINALLY GET TO YOUR POINT.--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read the introductory paragraph under "Content" on WP:NOT, which states, "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." Deor (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You already stated that you think it fits under subheading (3). So what is your point now?--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't state that. 18:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh. What are you even doing in this conversation? GTFO.--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please try to stay civil. The rules on civility here are not much different than the RPC found in many states. Mandsford (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does not appear to be anything more than a directory of people providing a service. The fact that only two have Wikipedia articles merely helps this conclusion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, thanks for coming here with a blatantly obvious personal vendetta (talk). You're right it is a directory of people/companies providing a service. So is this: List_of_restaurant_chains and this: List_of_insurance_companies and this List_of_banks, etc. etc. etc. Why don't you contribute something instead of always trying to destroy other people's contributions? --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such is not in the business of "providing a resource for those seeking LSAT instruction." Deor (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please explain to me how a list of LSAT prep companies is any different than the List_of_asset_management_firms, or the List_of_South_Korean_retailers, or any of the other lists of businesses at [19] or [20]?? I'm really feeling like this is more about shutting "noobs" out of Wikipedia than it is about adherence to any actual principle. The conclusory arguments in favor of deletion are a dead give-away.
The difference is that the other two lists that you've mentioned haven't been nominated for deletion. Both lists are low quality-- unsourced, indiscriminate, remarkably uninformative-- and they could be brought here to the snake pit if someone wanted to do so. Around here, what they refer to as "other crap exists" (Wikipedia's wording, not mine) is an argument that gets shot down right away. If the outcome of this discussion were "merge", then it would provide you the opportunity to mention the subject of instruction providers within the body of the LSAT article, and provide some precedent to avoid having someone try to edit that information out. Mandsford (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mandsford: Thank you for at least addressing my questions/arguments, and not resorting to ad hominem accusations and vague/conclusory statements. I'm glad someone around here finally had the intelligence and courtesy to do so.--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, been there, done that. I think that the topic of LSAT preparation classes in general is worthwhile, just like the bar review classes that every graduate goes through before taking the bar exam; and I think that people would want to know how to find out more. On the other hand, because there are so many providers out there, I think that you run the risk of crossing into either (a) making a yellow pages if you try to list them all or (b) promoting the so-called "notable" companies (translation, "bigger") at the expense of the smaller ones; neither of those is a good result. Ideally, if there was a link to an independent website that lists purveyors of that type of service, that would be the better result. There's a specific policy rule against creating directories of addresses and phone numbers; on the other hand, nothing wrong with showing people where they can click on to someone else's directory of addresses and phone numbers. Mandsford (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was thinking about making this page into a comparison chart with pricing and geographical location information for each course. Would that make a difference, or would it still be "yellow pages" material? --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Patent Lawyer 001:If you want people to anwer your points seriously, I would recommend not phrasing them as attacks or insults. You'll get a better response. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This from the guy whose first communication with me was to accuse me of being the author of the blog I posted an article about. You are a d-bag. STFU. Stop fabricating rules for wikipedia, and people might not get annoyed with you so often. A quick look at your talk page reveals that you enjoy making up your own rules. --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That probably would cross into being a directory. Although it would certainly be useful information, Wikipedia was launched with a very definite set of ten rules about the content of articles, grouped under the heading of "What Wikipedia is not" (the shortcut of WP:NOT has the text). Although I found those frustrating at first, they all make sense. In the case of information that other people might rely upon (such as a price list), you can see the problems in having that in a form that "anyone can edit". Mandsford (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I won't bother then. I thought that this would be a helpful contribution, and based on the other existing pages (noted above) I thought it was within the rules. But apparently most of the pages I've cited above should also be deleted, they just haven't been nominated for some reason... This situation is very confusing to newcomers who look to existing pages as examples of what is appropriate. This is all the more frustrating when other editors refuse to look at the existing articles you give as examples, but merely scream "NOTDIR - DELETE THIS" repeatedly. Thanks for the info. --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 16:37, 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 speedy deleted, author requested deletion (as evidenced by page blanking and the below comment). Jamie☆S93 18:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camryn Henigman[edit]

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

Another probable hoax - Google shows no hits for "Camryn Henigman", making it unlikely that she has released three studio albums as claimed by the article. Passportguy (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Livnic- very sorry I was trying to create a practice article but accidentally published it

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

The result was speedily deleted (G3) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Horpestad[edit]

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

Likely hoax - http://www.moldefk.no/site/statistikk/spillerstall.php?page_id=724 does not have this person listed and google doesn't show anything pertinent either Passportguy (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.moldefk.no/site/statistikk/spillerstall.php?page_id=724 only shows the senior team of Molde FK. Google is likely to show up with limited results due to his very recent rise to recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punaballer (talk • contribs) 17:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he is not a professional footballer playing in a major league then he is not sufficiently notable to be included here. Passportguy (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read and understand Norwegian. He is not mentioned anywhere on moldefk.no, nor is he mentioned in fotball.no (the Norwegian Football Association's site), nor can I find any mention of him in any of the main Norwegian newspapers online. Neither of the two Norwegian Wikipedias have an article about him either (which doesn't prove anything but is another strong indication of non-notability). --bonadea contributions talk 18:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a clear hoax; with no credible evidence of existence. ~ mazca t|c 21:53, 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 - Altenmann >t 18:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derzhava[edit]

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

The transliteration of a russian word, which is nothing but an archaic term for "state". Of course, as any archaic term, it bears a certain flavor in modern Russian language, but it is hardly a subject of an encyclopedic article. Timurite (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the word has more uses and related conceptions than the English word 'state'. E.g. check google books results. The term is used in academic discourse as in everyday politics, thus, it's as relevant as, for instance, Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality is. --Miacek (t) 17:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a valid argument. Translations of numerous foreign words have different semantic scope. Just look into any bilingual dictionary. Timurite (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The organizations and/or the book with the name may qualify for inclusion, but not an entry about the word itself. Vicenarian (T · C) 17:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no need to use romanization when a perfectly good translation is available. Until the word is included in OED or another English dictionary of similar scope, it does not deserve a Wikipedia entry of its own, and even then it should be more than a dictdef.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:19, May 28, 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not just a transliteration; it's a central concept in certain ideologies. Its meaning might have changed over time, but then again it's far from being unique in that respect. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is the case, can it be expanded beyond a mere dictionary definition to an explanation of the concept? If not, I'm afraid I have to reassert WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Vicenarian (T · C) 19:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it's not listed in any English dictionaries, it's a transliteration—it's as simple as that. Otherwise we could take any Russian word describing some high concept with some regional specificity and create an article about it. Doesn't work that way.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:59, May 28, 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's more than a transliteration or a dictionary definition, it's a concept. For example, a very quick search yields this: [21] usage - clearly as an independent concept.radek (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Excellent, so let's rewrite it about the concept of "derzhava". But if it stays written like a dictionary definition, it should go, at least over to Wiktionary. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quick google books search for any similar term/concept (e.g., narod, samoderzhaviye, otechestvo, rodina...) would yield similar results. This does not automatically make these words English, however. In a work explaining a concept it is only natural to transliterate the original Russian word for clarification, to eliminate ambiguity, or to meet the needs of the specialists. When a concept is explained in many academic works, it eventually enters the English language as a loanword (e.g., glasnost, intelligentsia, oblast...), but until that happens it remains just a transliteration used for convenience. We, the Wikipedians, are not in a position to determine what is and what is not "good enough" to become a new loanword; we are supposed to be guided by existing reference sources to make a distinction. The term "derzhava" does not pass muster, no matter how much details we stuff into the article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:37, May 28, 2009 (UTC)
  • If the term is indeed widely used in political literature, that literature could be described here. As it currently stands, however, this page is little more than a dictionary definition, with links to a couple of usage examples. I say re-write it to be descriptive and explanatory of the concept, its history and contemporary usage, or else delete. Cnilep (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have said this several times already above, are you going to repeat this every time someone votes "Keep"? :) --Martintg (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do sound like a broken record don't I? :) The point I'm trying to get across is that I'm hearing all this about how "derzhava" is an important ideological concept, therefore the article should be kept. However, the article in its current form does not go into "derzhava" in any greater detail than a dictionary definition - thus qualifying it for deletion. I'd be all for keeping the article if it were reworked into an expansive explanation of this "central notion for the self-assertive and national-patrotic course." In fact, I would be fascinated to read it. BUT... I'm going to stop repeating myself. :) Vicenarian (T · C) 03:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a relief :) It is apparent that this article can be reworked into an expansive explanation of this "central notion for the self-assertive and national-patrotic course." Clearly the article is a stub in need of expansion. We don't normally go deleting stubs, nor can one expect a stub to be expanded during the course of an AfD debate. --Martintg (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between a stub and an article that simply does not belong as is. If an article doesn't belong, it should be deleted. Any willing editor is welcome to work on improving the article offline or in his/her userspace if/when it is deleted, and can then move it back to the main encyclopedia when it is "ready for primetime." I've seen this done may times. Vicenarian (T · C) 13:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it can be found in English books.Biophys (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A great number of different words can be found in English books. We don't have an article for each of them because, as already pointed out above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:07, May 29, 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Offliner (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:NOTDICTIONARY. What next? "Shapka is Russian word meaning hat..." "Sapogi is the Russian word meaning high boots..."? This is not encyclopedic material.DonaldDuck (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You forgot vodka, vobla and pravda. It would be pretty absurd to claim that NOTDICTIONARY requires deleting all of those merely because they're Russian words. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not forget "vodka", which is listed in every English dictionary one would care to consult, or "Pravda", which is a proper noun (a newspaper title). I would have to double-check if "vobla" is included—if it is not, it should go the way of "telogreika" and "derzhava".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:02, June 1, 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) 08:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pattabhi Ram[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP and no sources seem to be available besides the subject's own blogs and youtube page (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Even if the curent claims could be verified, subject does not seem to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC requirements for notability. Prod was contested by 117.97.194.13 (talk · contribs) without any improvements or reason being given; so am bringing it here for discussion. Abecedare (talk) 17:16, 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) 08:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redd Stylez[edit]

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

Part hoax (if he landed a part starring as himself in a movie, why are there no Google news archive hits on him?), part promotional, part non-notable. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rely on IMDB for debunking a possible hoax, as you note, it's not a reliable source. Drawn Some (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it could be a hoax, it shouldn't be an article. Unverifiable. Hipocrite (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing about this article makes any sense with regard to verifiability and looks to me like a hoax. The imdb entry can be discounted as anyone can send in info to be added and their (imdb's) checking systems are less than efficient. I believe it to be a combination of a hoax and vanity article. --WebHamster 12:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think it's a hoax, as there are MP3 downloads available under this name on MP3.com, however, notability is clearly not established. لennavecia 19:04, 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 following more edits to the content I have speedily deleted the article as G12 copyright violation and G11 blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASCEND (organization)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. There is also a redirect to this article at ASCEND, A Humanitarian Alliance. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:ORG. The sources cited do not appear meet the threshold of independent, reliable, third-party sources. Several of the source links do not work. One is a blog. Several are from websites that seem indirectly connected to the organization itself. There is a newspaper search result from the Salt Lake City Tribune linked, but I don't see what that has to do with the article. Vicenarian (T · C) 17:18, 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 -Djsasso (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Edmonton Business Association[edit]

South Edmonton Business Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined PROD; prod tag deleted without edits to the article, but the user left the note "decline: reliable sources mentioning the subject are enough indication of importance/significance" on their talk page. I disagree - the sources only mention the SEBA in passing, which doesn't add up to "significant coverage".

The original reason in the PROD tag was: "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: 2009 May 28 – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." I agree completely - Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Significant coverage" is rather subjective. There is reference by major news stations as well as the City of Edmonton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkonetwo (talk • contribs) 17:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, ""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" - as I said above, the sources only mention SEBA in passing, and in my view, that doesn't amount to "significant" coverage. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only has 48 Google hits, none of which are significant. I tried db-club and prodding, sadly these did not work. It is important to keep in mind that having a Wikipedia page will do absolutely nothing to promote an entity like the South Edmonton Business Association nor the businesses in South Edmonton, since click-through to such pages is practically non-existent. People Googling South Edmonton Business Association obviously already know what they are looking for. If the page creator wishes to drive business towards the SEBA, or towards South Edmonton, more traditional advertising methods are far superior. Joey the Mango (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not dispute your point that having a page on Wikipedia will be virtually worthless from an advertising perspective but you are missing my intentions entirely. As an online encyclopedia I was under the impression that it was a comprehensive database of noteworthy information. The association, which dates back to 1912 and has been instrumental to South Edmonton's current economic and political landscape, apparently doesn't have a "significant" amount of coverage. It is a non-profit association that has been involved deeply in Edmonton's history over the past 100 years and it is very disappointing to see a few people who likely know nothing about Edmonton try to destroy an entry based on what they have "googled". I'm not sure if there is some sort of points system on Wikipedia where people are rewarded for tearing down someone else's work (albeit a small entry) but I suspect that the people who do this are void of actually ever having built anything themselves. Unless of course they include their Wikipedia page as something they've built. BRAVO. Jimtraxx (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this personally - this is not about tearing down something that someone has built, and it certainly isn't about earning reward points. Wikipedia is not a database, as you say, but an encyclopedia. Per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." That burden has not been met in the article in question. If you have such sources, I suggest that you add them to the article. I also suggest that you review Wikipedia's guidelines about assuming good faith and ownership of articles. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wikipedia says that it is NOT a directory. Joey the Mango (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say DIRECTORY? It says in plain font "a comprehensive database of noteworthy information". Clearly there are more intelligent people on here than me, for they have mastered the art of deciphering code. (198.166.28.213 (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Don't question the infinite wisdom of someone hiding behind a keyboard. (ChristopherPark (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Oh please, you act like we're killing the organization, not removing some text from Wikipedia that nobody even read, as can be seen here. Joey the Mango (talk) 16:51, 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 withdrawn by nominator. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Draycott[edit]

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

Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league. Contested PROD. GiantSnowman 17:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. The USL's normally very reliable stats archive is unfortunately incomplete for Wilmington's 2003 season - http://www.uslsoccer.com/teams/2003/22403.html - and I don't know of another source where I would find the data that would allow him to pass WP:ATHLETE. I have to admit that when I created the article I based the info purely on what Mark told me - I met him when he played in the USL PDL for Ventura County Fusion - and he said he had played in at least a couple of league games for Wilmington. Having said that, clearly "he told me so it must be true" cannot be used as a valid source, so if we can't find any more sources, so be it. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, verbal confirmation from the player in question is not acceptable on Wikipedia. A printed, third-party source must be found. GiantSnowman 17:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because two of his teams appear to be professional teams, according to this edit summary in which the PROD was declined. Unless the nominator can offer an explanation for why those don't count, I see no reason to delete. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the issue is whether he actually PLAYED or not. There's no doubt whatsoever that he was in the squad, but WP:ATHLETE requires you to have actually taken part in a game. Mark told me personally that he played in a couple of games for Wilmington, but I can find no online source to confirm this. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And as I've said to Jon, if a source CAN be found saying that he actually played a game (as opposed to being just in the squad), then I'm more than happy to withdraw the nom. GiantSnowman 17:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He made some substitute appearances in these games, but I don't know if the teams playing were professional or not - [23] [24] [25] Camw (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha! These appearances for Wilmington ARE in the USL Second Division, which is indeed a fully professional league. I believe these are the appearances Mark was referring to - I just got my year wrong (they were in 2004, not 2003). Thank you for digging this up!. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, that's me happy that he actually does pass WP:ATHLETE, and so I withdraw my nomination. GiantSnowman 01:01, 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. Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of pipe makers[edit]

List of pipe makers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Trivial and unnecessary list, magnet for spam. Almost all entries non-notable; other than Patsy Brown, the bluelinks in the article all go to disambiguation pages (without any pipe makers in them) or unrelated individuals. Likewise, the inclusion of companies (in addition to people) in the list makes it very spammy. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A quick search of JSTOR shows that Robert Reid produced a chanter with 14 keys. I don't think this is an arbitrary list. Ottre 23:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding your comment — 'because a specific notable pipe maker and 8 other notable pipe makers are featured in a list of 82 pipe makers, the list is valid' - is there something else to be inferred from your mini-biographical statement? Quaeler (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article obviously didn't begin as "trivia". So what if it has been spammed over the years? Only a thousand or so pipemakers have ever registered their own brand, so it's difficult to judge the notability of each entry. Ottre 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur. Quaeler (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ottre 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For one thing, it doesn't disambiguate between musical pipes, water pipes, crack pipes, half-pipes, etc. Agreed that this will be spam magnet, but extend that concern to vandalism magnet. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AFD should be a last result, not the first place you go to. Obviously, most famous bagpipe makers probably won't have their own wikipedia articles yet. Not the most popular form of music about. But if they were mentioned in a book, or other sources, that makes them notable. References should be added for everyone listed, showing where are mentioned as being notable, be it books, newspapers, trade magazine for bagpipe makers, magazines dedicated to Scottish culture, or whatnot. Dream Focus 11:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per great big list of unsourced unverifable red links. When will wikipedia grow a spine and demand sourcing for articles?Bali ultimate (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary and unsubstantiated listcruft.
Comment: are you drive by voting or what? This is actually one of the most precise listings imaginable. "There are only 15 bagpipe makers in the world today" [26] Ottre 03:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that cited quote, it seems like you're trying to make a point about the present day with a 20 year old article... What am i missing there? WRT precision, the article isn't restricted to present day so, given that we're dealing with centuries of human history, how could it possibly ever be 'one of the most precise listings imaginable'?
Is there Wikipedia precedent for a laundry list of people, the majority of whom are unlikely to ever each have an individual article covering them? Quaeler (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, its centuries of the history of four or five different countries. Second, if we assume there was in fact a revival of pipe music in the 1950s and that by 1989 only fifteen different people were in the business, I think it's safe to say there are no more than fifty notable pipemakers -- ever -- worth writing about. I can't manage fifty individual articles on my own, of course, but over time it's very possible to get complete coverage of the industry. Ottre 06:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like i'm taking Zoolander crazy pills here — that's honestly a valid metric? That because the word couplet "bagpipe maker" shows up in a number of news articles (and looking at the link, not many about an actual bagpipe making person), this gives us informative data? Really? Quaeler (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glancing at the first result from that, it mentions "famous Edinburgh firm of bagpipe makers", and then the second "one of Scotland's most acclaimed bagpipe makers". Yes, there are sources out there to confirm those on the list. Dream Focus 04:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of which addresses the initial claims for article deletion: "Trivial and unnecessary list, magnet for spam. Almost all entries non-notable; other than Patsy Brown, the bluelinks in the article all go to disambiguation pages (without any pipe makers in them) or unrelated individuals. Likewise, the inclusion of companies (in addition to people) in the list makes it very spammy." Is the suggestion that we delete all individuals off the list who cannot be directly supported by a reputable citation nor has a Wiki article? Quaeler (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a user who keeps a watchful eye on bagpipe-related articles, mostly, I'm not hugely fussed about this one. I agree it is a magnet for spam, although I don't think that's a valid reason for deletion in itself. As for the nomination: trivial and unnecessary. Maybe. Perhaps it would be better served as a category. Almost all entries non-notable - I disagree. Many of the makers do deserve an article to my mind, although to be fair it will be hard work establishing notability and sources to Wikipedia's current standards (sigh). I do agree with Dream Focus's comment that AFD is not a reasonable response to a badly sourced article, particularly when the lister has no particular subject area knowledge. Calum (talk) 12:40, 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 keep. ~fl 06:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galleri Rom[edit]

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

I'm bringing this here because my good faith efforts are not really producing any information that explains the importance of this gallery. The article creator says it plays an important role in Norwegian culture, but I can't verify that with reliable sources. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition, 16 Oct 2006 in Aftenposten mention in a fashion article + several other articles, mostly notices about exhibitions at Galleri ROM. A search of Aftenposten for ROM for Kunst og Arkitektur gives some newer results: [27] [28]
Here is an article in Arkitektnytt, Architect News, about the gallery and its leader, Henrik der Minassian. It says he's been the leader since Galleri ROM and Institutt for Romkunst (The Institute for Room Art) were combined in 2005 to become ROM for Kunst og Arkitektur (ROOM for Art and Architecture). And here is another article in the same magazine, where, clearly, the gallery is still called Galleri Rom, now in 2009.
It appears that the gallery is active with both exhibitions and conferences. - Hordaland (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the articles in no:Arkitektnytt linked by Hordaland, which count as exclusive coverage in a third-party RS. Apparently there was an article in Aftenposten as well, but it is unfortunately no longer accessible. I'm not so sure it "plays an important role in Norwegian culture", as the creator stated, but it seems to meet our notability guidelines. decltype (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — As User:Hordaland and User:Decltype identify, there is further content which can be added & this is an arguably notable article. But we really, reaaally should add further content to get it out of the ultra-stub class. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 18:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Added additional content. Still think it is a keep. Williamborg (Bill) 21:38, 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) 08:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Consumation[edit]

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

Independent release with no independent reliable sources. Only source comes from forums on Hurt's official(?) message board (not independent or reliable). Prod removed for pointy reason. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Hurt (band). What is suggested at WP:NALBUMS for non notable albums is a merge into the band article, but the article already seems to have mention of it, so only a redirect is needed. FingersOnRoids 21:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very likely to be undone if redirected, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable release with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:05, 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 Discretionary early closure based upon what seems to be the obvious outcome. Masses of unsourced content, potential copyright violation, potential WP:COI concerns, fails to demonstrate why this National Rail department is notable, and is written in a completely inappropriate style. Content duplicates part of National Rail Enquiries which itself needs serious reworking or simply merging into National Rail. Adambro (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Rail Communication Centre[edit]

National Rail Communication Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is written exactly like how I would expect the "about us" link on an official website to be written. It contains no references, no incoming links, and was written in one go by Nationalrail (talk · contribs).

If any of the material here deserves to be on Wikipedia it should be condensed to a paragraph at National Rail or National Rail Enquiries (the latter article is not in a much better state than this, needs much trimming, rewriting and citing to make encyclopaedic, although the topic is inclusion-worthy.) - I'm just not certain there is enough that is encyclopaedic that can be said in this article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 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) 08:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Lampropoulos[edit]

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

Contested PROD: No indication of Notability - Quick search reveals mainly single line mentions of the name in questionable reliability sources. Does not seem to comply with WP:BIO guidelines. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. BTW, there is also an article created on the band itself, which also probably ought to go. Constantine ✍ 09:46, 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) 08:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurt (Self-Titled)[edit]

Hurt (Self-Titled) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Independent release with no independent reliable sources. Only source comes from forums on Hurt's official(?) message board (not independent or reliable). Prod removed for pointy reason. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Hurt (band). What is suggested at WP:NALBUMS for non notable albums is a merge into the band article, but the article already seems to have mention of it, so only a redirect is needed. FingersOnRoids 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Delete it. Can't think of a reason why anyone would ever search that. FingersOnRoids 21:22, 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) 08:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dax Callner[edit]

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

Contested Prod - No indication of Notability - Quick search reveals mainly single line mentions of the name in questionable reliability sources. Does not seem to comply with WP:BIO guidelines. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:21, 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. ~fl 06:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Lucero[edit]

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

Article is one sentence in length. Although there was a flurry of media coverage of this individuals death last year, I do not believe this article is notable enough Thisglad (talk) 17:37, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – First, one sentence articles are not a reason for deletion. I do not believe we have mandated that a piece be so many words long before inclusion. In fact, a vast majority of articles in hard copy encyclopedias are no more than a sentence or two. Two, I am not sure if the nominator is saying that the event/individual is non-notable or that he/she feels the article in Wikipedia itself is non-notable. If the case is that the individual is non-notable, I have to disagree. A quick Google News search, as shown here [29] gives more than enough reliable – creditable – verifiable – 3rd party sources to warrant inclusion here in Wikipedia. If it is the position of the nominator that they feel that the actual article itself is unimpressive, sorry again, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. A better reason to nominate would have been One Event. However, I would make the argument that though this individual is only notable for the way they died, the manner of their death has sparked controversy such areas as Hate Crime and Immigration. In this light the individual is notable.Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, a one sentence article for a so called notable person is of substandard quality, also this person has no hint of notability other than being killed Thisglad (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why not try and improve the quality rather than complaining about it? It is easy to point out shortcomings but more noble to correct the faults. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 23:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • what makes you think someone who nominates an article for deletion must try and improve the article? That's not my job, and Marcelo Lucero is not notable Thisglad (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In that we are not paid for what we do here, I have never considered this a job, but rather an opportunity to disemmenate information, without bias, and free of charge :-), Regarding your comment "... what makes you think someone who nominates an article for deletion must try and improve the article?" is not that why we are here? To make sure the imformation that is posted to Wikipedia is both informative and correct? Thanks ShoesssS Talk 00:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've proposed that this article be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per WP:CSD#A7. One does not become notable because one is murdered. If there was more coverage on the subject other than how he was beaten and killed, such as critical responses, then this article might be worthy of coverage, and if so at a different title (such as Murder of Marcelo Lucero).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If consensus is gained here for speedy deletion, I'll be happy to delete it, but I'm removing the speedy tag until there's a verdict. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ryulong's concerns have been addressed. The material concerning its significance was readily available from the sources already included in the article. Nice to see you follow me here from the MfD, Ryulong! :-) TAway (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No it hasn't, if anything, you've given reason why the violent habit(I'm not going to say sport) to do what these teenagers do is notable, you still have given no reason as to why this guy is notable. Dying doesn't make you notable, neither does recent media coverage as to the death. If there is more media coverage in a few weeks time, he's notable, not before.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Recent" media coverage? It's May 2009 now (with coverage still ongoing), and Lucero was killed in November 2008. There are seven months of continuous coverage represented by the sources currently used in this article. Your comments illustrate clearly that you followed me here after the MfD on my userspace, didn't read any context surrounding this particular AfD, and are opposing me for the sake of harassment. TAway (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually none of those articles you posted were about Marcelo Lucero or his death incident, he was just mentioned in passing in unrelated news, this can hardly be called 'seven months of continuous coverage'Thisglad (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to article on event per WP:ONEEVENT. When we have a one event situation the way to cover it is via an article on the event, not the person. Don't know how an admin will implement that, but it is the right outcome here. Hobit (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

washinton123 MArcelo Lucero is a falshpoint in local and national spotlights showing the racism that is evident in todays society. Locally, in Long Island, he is still ahuge news story after 7 months. In addition local civil rights activists are comparing the Suffolk County Executive to a modern day Racist and enactor of modern jim Crow laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Washington123 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 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 Speedy delete, blatant hoax. Laser brain (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arfon (composer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No evidence of notability, primary contributor appears to have a conflict of interest. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:02, 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Hornuss[edit]

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

Has never played a game in a fully professional league, failing the minimum inclusion threshold. Punkmorten (talk) 16:01, 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 Withdrawn Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Judes[edit]

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

This band does not appear to meet WP:BAND standards based on current sources. All linked sources appear to be from band's own website. No Google hits. Vicenarian (T · C) 15:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC) I am withdrawing my nomination of this article for deletion. The band appears to meet notability, and I am working with the initial contributor to remove original research and improve citation. I am recommending a speedy keep. Vicenarian (T · C) 18:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference your last point on the page. These sources don't have a online archive component that I can find. How do I: 1. Validate these articles. Yes, they're posted on the Judes site, but given the sources lack of an online-archive, I'm curious on how I can validate these. 2. Major station rotation. How do I validate this?

The band's toured internationally and been signed to an international label, with links to Sony and MGM. Can this be rectified by someone at Blue Pie contacting wikipedia to verify the band's noteriety? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KungFuTony8 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The information in the article is sourced from the articles referenced. Also I've included an additional media link. KungFuTony8 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Hello again. Kay, I think I've removed information not cited in the media references. KungFuTony8 (talk) 17:40, 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 delete. Tone 20:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lando Calrissian's Power Tash[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lando Calrissian's Power Tash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

14 GHits, no Google News hits, no reliable references supplied pointing to notability. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 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) 08:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mokhless Al-Hariri[edit]

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

Recreation of previously deleted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mokhless Al-Hariri. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 15:49, 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) 08:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Spiritual Edifices of Islam[edit]

The Spiritual Edifices of Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This body of work has not received enough independent coverage to justify its own article. Google search returns only a couple of relevant results... original contributor seems to be writing quite a bit about this family... suggest merging into Wahbi Al-Hariri for now... Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 15:49, 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) 08:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson timebomb[edit]

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

Local band. The gomemphis link gives at least a minor assertion of notability, but IMHO it just is not enough, thus this AFD. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's little there beyond inflated, unsourced hype. There's one album, but no claim of actual release - no label or anything that would make me think it was more than a demo. Not notable or verifiable. Hairhorn (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know, of course, that a Google search is not a reliable test of notability, but it can give an impression. I searched through dozens of hits and found nothing that could by any stretch of the imagination be called reliable independent coverage; if there were extensive coverage I would have expected to come up with at least something, however small. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Reclosing to fix formatting. Originally closed by Artw (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Mann (painter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:Creative. Minimal assertion of notability, little coverage in outside sources, google search brings up only a few results for "David Mann artist" (note that some of them are for at least two other painters named David Mann). Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Consider the nomination withdrawn; my apologies, I apparently made a mistake with this one. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd be prepared to allow some leeway for a very specialized sub-culture artist, the "Norman Rockwell of biking" supposedly. But it needs more independent refs before I could support. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CREATIVE: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." American Choppers did an episode dedicated to him. "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument," His work has now become a monument in the motorcycle they created? The original article was created as "David Mann" the "(painter)" was added later. A google search for "david mann motorcycle" returns over 500k results. There's even a "David Mann Chopperfest" McKay (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think we need to do more than a simple Google search of "David Mann artist" [30] [31] to see how wide the coverage of David Mann is. I've added a section Talk:David Mann (painter)#David Mann Bibliography with a long list of references with quotes that demonstrate how influential and recognized David Mann is, and to make it easier to improve the article.--Dbratland (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, add references per Dbratland Artw (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per refs. provided by Dbratland. Notable within this subculture. He's no Ed "Big Daddy" Roth but then, who is? freshacconci talktalk 15:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An important representative of a sort of artist who has perhaps only received recognition on a grassroots level, but that level of notability seems to be suitably established. Bus stop (talk) 23:10, 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) 08:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Shawn Desman album)[edit]

Untitled (Shawn Desman album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article about unreleased/supposed-future album. Fails WP:CRYSTAL at the very least. Google search brings up no third-party press on this album. - eo (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems worth that crystal hammer thing, doesn't it? treelo radda 17:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop WP:HAMMER time. (Although it would be funny if Desman actually did name the album "Untitled.") Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the hammer thing. Delete as above. Eusebeus (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources found. You know it's too early for a wikipedia article when the article creator doesn't even know the album name. Violates WP:Crystal in the biggest way. FingersOnRoids 21:13, 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia – South Africa relations[edit]

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

another random combination with no resident embassies. I could find very little coverage of actual bilateral relations [32] except their 2 rugby union teams sometimes compete. LibStar (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reliable soruces adress these relations in the detail required for an article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 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. ~fl 06:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edouard Stern[edit]

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

Articles with mostly unfounded rumors and a murder not worthy of a page Abdelkweli (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I say delete because: 1. This article is full of rumors on the murder and speculation on the life of Mr. Stern and 2. I don't believe we need an entire article on the life of a banker when there are million of bankers around the world. Fails WP:BIO#basic criteria Abdelkweli (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is based entirely on selective media speculation. Various rumors flew across media circles regarding the sexual nature of Edouard Stern's, but none have been confirmed. This article selectively chooses sources in depicting Mr. Stern's death and should thus be deleted. Dyc2005 (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)— Dyc2005 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep - I've cleaned up most of the non-factual statements and added more reference. A quick Google search reveals there are numerous articles about him before his death and he was very influential in France. The article could do with a bit more information about his life but this is definitely a notable person. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you say he was very influential? Abdelkweli (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Admittedly he was influential in France as as such all of the many, many references to him are in French but he was the head of numerous international companies and that 'B-movie' was shown at the Cannes festival which I would say made it noteworthy. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:2, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
        • He was certainly influential but never head of numerous international companies. He was head of Banque Stern and IRR but appart from these two, none. Also if you can find any information on these two companies that would be helpful but they failed the google test on my end. As to the Cannes Festival, anyone can submit their movie to Cannes and more than 4000 do. So that director promoted his movie by submitting it to the Festival and claiming Edouard Stern was his inspiration hoping to the get the media interested. Movie failed = B Movie not worthy. Abdelkweli (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not certain this is a deletion candidate. The biggest reason for deletion would be violating the "notable for one event" rule. The article has been heavily edited since the AfD nomination and many of the arguments above no longer apply: it is no longer full of rumours, it's now bare facts, which let you draw your own sordid conclusions. "Selectively choosing sources" is usually fixed with editing, not deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did indeed remove the rumors. As to bare facts? Please source the facts or else this just doesn't stand. It's everyone bringing their "a friend told me" knowledge. Abdelkweli (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pretty simple keep. "The story of Edouard Stern is cited as the inspiration for Olivier Assayas' 2008 film 'Boarding Gate'" is reason enough to keep, in addition with the murder and wealth of sources, it's nothing we can't fix. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since there are sources. I puzzled--because there are millions of bankers, we should exclude even the notable ones? DGG (talk) 02:23, 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) 01:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic–Kosovan relations[edit]

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

This was previously nommed as part of a group. The result of that debate was "merge" to International recognition of Kosovo. The information in this stub, that Iceland recognized Kosovo's independence, is already present in the target article. A "merge" discussion (which would just make this a redirect} hasn't gotten any traction (2 arguing in favor, the creator of the article arguing against). Since this stub has no room for expansion -- since there are no reliable, independent sources that discuss this bilateral relationship in any depth at all -- lets delete this (no info would thereby be lost since it's already contained at the "recognition of" article. I would have no opposition to a redirect being created after deletion, but note that this is a highly implausible search term. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with prejudice. "relations" articles as a genre not acceptable, due to inherent violation of synth. In addition, this is Yet More Kosovo Spam, sorry. Finally, should have been merged already. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. Already merged. Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Per the GFDL, we cannot delete the edit histories of merged articles. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't understand GFDL. An unsourced assertion that "iceland recognized kosovo's independence" (a fact noted in a different way in the appropriate article already) has no bearing on deletion here, certainly is no obstacle. Really, you don't understand the policy. This article is a content fork. If someone redirects after deletion, i won't cry any tears but, again, there is no GFDL issue.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apparently you do not understand our attribution guidelines. If anything originally attributed by one user is merged elsewhere in any manner, then we must preserve the original contributor's attribution for public record. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no content to merge. That X recognized Z was already included in that article, long ago. There are no attribution issues, no GFDL issues.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • If a previous discussion closed as merge and someone did in fact do so, then we cannot delete per the GFDL. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • (ec)My understanding was that the articles were already merged ("An administrator merges the article history into the merge target along with the content.") If they were not already merged, then delete as having no content worth retaining, and warn someone for violating WP:CON/WP:GAMEHipocrite (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're playing the fool, nobody. That Iceland recognized Kosovo's independence was included in International recognition of Kosovo on March 5, 2008, the day the recognition was formally made [33]. This article, currently under discussion for deletion, was created in August 2008, more than 5 months later. There is no GFDL issue associated with deleting this article and allowing the simple fact that "x recognized z" to continue to persist in its original home. I'm sorry you can't grasp this. Truly.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you think it wrong that Estonia–Luxembourg relations was undeleted despite comments in an AfD and DRV, then why bring this here after a discussion that closed as "merge" whether it was merged or not. If that was the consensus of the first discussion, then just leave the redirect in place instead of going around the earlier consensus. We don't need to keep having the same discussions over and over. We should instead be focusing on article improvement. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Robostub fails notability and is a directory-like listing, failing WP:NOT. Edison (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Bali ultimate prejudges the facts and makes the amazing claim that "this stub has no room for expansion -- since there are no reliable, independent sources that discuss this bilateral relationship in any depth at all". There clearly are and I've added some to the article. In this article [34] released by Iceland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs after Kosovo's declaration of independence, the claim is made that it is "crucial that the international community continue to support reconstruction in Kosovo" signaling that Iceland will continue to support Kosovo economically. Disagree with subjective claims about "non-notability". The bilateral relations of nation states are notable and encyclopedic.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea what "reliable, independent sources" are at all, do you. Ponder on that word "independent" and then ponder "released by Iceland's ministry of foreign affairs" and see how they're related. Also, ponder what "in any depth." Might mean. I ask you to ponder all of this before you, basically, call me a liar again.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. We don't need to turn this into a mud-slinging contest. As you note, there are several qualifiers you use in your description of sources as either "independent" or "in depth". When I say that such articles exist, you might have assumed that we could have different opinions about what your vague terminology encompasses. Instead you lashed out at me saying that I "have no idea" of what you're talking about. Please don't take my questioning your subjective judgment about the worthiness of this article as a personal attack. We just disagree. Leave it at that.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iceland isn't going to be giving much aid to anyone. If you haven't been keeping up with financial news, the entire country has basically gone bankrupt when their entire financial system collapsed bringing the government down with it. The whole country is in shambles, their currency is worthless, they even had to get an IMF loan. Shameful really. Here's a timeline: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7851853.stm Drawn Some (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relations established in the past but discontinued today can still count as notable relations. (See Cuba-United States relations) "Worthless"?!? "Shameful"?!? Comments reflect a systematic bias.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you don't understand what systematic bias is, please read what you linked to. Drawn Some (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject of article is non-notable, independent references do not exist to supply in-depth significant coverage. Delete completely and absolutely, no redirects, disambigs, etc., not a likely search term anyway. Leave nothing but a warning about re-creating a deleted page. Salt. Drawn Some (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the info on "Iceland, as the only NATO country without a military, sent police officers, nurses and legal experts " could easily be contained in 1 or 2 lines in Foreign relations of Kosovo. and Drawn Some makes the important point that Iceland is very highly unlikely to give any more foreign aid in the forseeable future. Certainly no evidence of ongoing relations and the most important point of recognition is covered elsewhere. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Iceland is trying to do the best for Kosovo. Relations between these two countries are obviously notable. --Turkish Flame ☎ 09:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"trying to do their best"? when is that a criterion for notability? If they were trying to do their best they would open up trade channels, open up an embassy, take a certain number of Kosovars as refugees. And you're again using another argument to avoid WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - that Iceland recognises Kosovo is documented at International recognition of Kosovo. To the extent the ICRU's activities there are notable (I highly doubt it), cover it at Iceland Crisis Response Unit. And please mind WP:GNG - Icelandic-government sources can't be used to validate the notability of actions of the Icelandic government. - Biruitorul Talk 18:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A strong keep. I'm not understanding this notion of deleting important inter-state relations as if we don't have room for them. --alchaemia (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just another note of more canvassing by Turkish Flame here's Alchaemia [35] and then there's [36] [37] and [38].Bali ultimate (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Content already merged after previous discussion, no notability established here. JohnCD (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable trivia. — Emil J. 12:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Liridon 16:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content already merged. WP:N is not met--I see no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Yilloslime TC 16:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTCASE. The world has around 200 countries. If you write an article on every country's relationship with every other country, that would be around 40,000 articles. Sebwite (talk) 22:35, 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 keep; rescued. - Altenmann >t 18:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV concluded that the result was actually "no consensus", so striking false claim above. (Personally, from the votes showing 9 deletes to only 4 keeps and the state of the article it's probably more accurately a "Delete" consensus, but since a "Keep" voter jumped on this and closed it without following proper procedure I guess we're stuck with no consensus for now.) DreamGuy (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France – Papua New Guinea relations[edit]

France – Papua New Guinea relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Since no reliable independent sources discuss this bilateral relationship in any depth at all. One can find mutual french and PNG presence at fishing conferences or on a UN committee here and there but A. Such things are multilateral. B. Even when these multilateral events have been covered (usually in primary sources but whatever) there is nothing beyond the trivia of "Ministers x and y were present." Bali ultimate (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the only things I could find were this and a joint press briefing of the 2 leaders [39] that contains no mention of bilateral relations despite both leaders being there. other than that relations and coverage are on the rugby league field where both participated in the 2008 Rugby League World Cup. LibStar (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. "relations" articles as a genre not acceptable, due to inherent violation of synth. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Your point of view runs against consensus. Articles on bilateral relations are not inherently unacceptable. You make believe they are, but Wikipedia practice and consensus disagree with you. That makes your vote on this particular article off-topic. Aridd (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable secondary sources adress this article in the depth required for an article. Hipocrite (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the above point does not relate to bilateral relations as PNG did not become a country until 1975 and was never a French colony. that info should be in History of Papua New Guinea. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is plenty of information here regarding political, economic, cultural and even military ties between these two far-flung countries. I'll be updating the page in the hope that it won't be deleted.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Loads of information? Like this: France still does not have much of a presence, exporting only EUR 2M in 2003. LibStar (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. A claim that a french explorer landed on an island "just to the east of New Guinea" 200 years before Papua New Guinea became an independent nation state as bolstering a claim for notability of a bilateral relationship. That's a rather epic fail in basic understanding of what bilateral means, even considering it's from an ARS member.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, just to let everyone here know, France has what's known as a "sui generis collectivity" in New Caledonia which isn't that far away from PNG. A plan for bilateral cooperation between the Armed Forces of New Caledonia and PNG’s defense forces was approved in November 2004. Sounds like bilateral relations to me.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cdgosimmons makes the paucity of relations painfully evident. Crowing about Alliance Francaise is simply scraping the bottom of the barrel. Utterly non-notable due to lack of significant in-depth coverage of thee topic of this article in independent reliable resources. Any relief aid can be mentioned in Foreign relations of Papua New Guinea and Alliance Francaise locations can be included in Alliance Francaise or even in the culture section of the PNG article if it is truly important. Crystal Ball military agreements aren't important. Drawn Some (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your failure to find in-depth coverage indicates non-notability? Do you speak French by any chance? Anyone speak French around here?!--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I speak French and could not find anything. almost all coverage is multilateral context or rugby league LibStar (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually see quite a few references to Papua New Guinea's relationship with New Caledonia (still within the French Republic). Did I mention before that I added a source saying that they have a bilateral military alliance? I think that should suffice to establish notability.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not true, where in the above search? are you mixing up "NOUVELLE GUINEE" with Nouvelle Caledonie? LibStar (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What nonesense. Still all primary sources. Still zero reliable sources independent of the subject that discuss the subject -- this supposed bilateral relationship -- at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are still confused about what a primary source is. A government owned media outlet is still a secondary source when reporting about a trade agreement. The actual text of the agreement is the primary source. Even so, primary sources are not banned. They just must be used with caution so that no original research is done in explaining that text in the primary source by a Wikipedia editor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
primary sources are not banned but any case for notability is greatly strengthened by independent third party sources. LibStar (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THe three primary sources are all run by the french foreign ministry, so i'm not sure what "government-owned media outlet" he's taking about. There is none.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You need secondary sources to write an article, and there aren't any on this topic.Yilloslime TC 03:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The creator of this article, User:Aridd, was never notified by User:Bali ultimate of this Afd.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You don't need secondary sources unless someone has honest doubt about the primary source being valid. Does anyone believe that either government is lying when it states France has given aid to help Papua New Guinea, they participate in joint military exercises, or any of the other information? Dream Focus 18:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you do need secondary sources. I think you are confusing notability with verifiability, a common mistake. Please familiarize yourself with our notability guidelines, which are the criteria for determining whether a topic deserves a stand-alone article. They say, in part that: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.… "Sources,"[1] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[2] Yilloslime TC 19:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are secondary sources, the primary source is the text of the treaty. The secondary source is the government website discussing the treaty. If you are worried about government websites not showing notability, we use the census designation to determine that townships are notable. For almanac entries, they just have to exist. We pipe in all federal judges, and elected representatives from their official congressional biographies. We dont require a biography in the New York Times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I should have just quoted all of WP:N to begin with:
We can argue about whether a gov't website is a primary or secondary source, and I'll grant that it's reliable, but it's unquestionably not an independent source. Yilloslime TC 22:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the France website is independent of Papua New Guinea. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say that the French gov't website is an independent source of information on France-PNG relations? That's the real question here. Yilloslime TC 04:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yilloslime. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as even those defending this admit, secondary sources covering "France – Papua New Guinea relations" are non-existent. Well, there's no good reason to ignore WP:GNG here; thus, let's delete. - Biruitorul Talk 03:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd like to thank those who've helped expand it, and I'd like to thank Cdogsimmons for letting me know this was up for deletion. I take this opportunity to remind people who nominate articles for deletion that it's a simple, easy and basic courtesy to inform the initial author of the article. As for this article: I disagree that government websites are not sufficient to establish notability. They provide neutral facts crucial to determining the relationship between the two countries. To imply that the French or PNG government is somehow making statistics up, that their reliability is questionable, seems to me quite ludicrous. Lastly, France and PNG are fairly close neighbours, via New Caledonia. New Caledonia and PNG are both in Melanesia, and Melanesian countries, as noted in the article, have expressed their views on New Caledonia's future in their region. There seems to be a trend among some editors who believe that articles on relations between a major power and a "small" country they've never heard of should automatically be deleted. (I've seen editors admit it twice before, in regards to Kiribati and Nauru: they use their own ignorance of these countries to justify calls for deletion.) I hope this isn't the case here. Aridd (talk) 08:08, 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 keep - Altenmann >t 18:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Law of Education[edit]

Fundamental Law of Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable topic. Fails WP:N. Almost entire article is paraphrased from a single "source" and/or directly taken from the Japanese wiki with translation clean up. Has been tagged for lacking of sources, being OR, and notability since January without a single edit being made to it beyond the adding of an interwiki link, which goes to a Korean law, not the same topic. PROD was removed by User:Fg2 with reason of "Removed deletion proposal. Objecingt to deletion. Topic is very worthy of an encyclopedia article." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is apparently a key statute governing education in Japan; the subject's notability seems baldly obvious to me. Other issues mentioned are matters for cleanup, not deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Education in Japan already has an article, so why is this article needed when all it does is repeat the law and then surround it with unsourced interpretation to it? If it is so key, why does nothing link to this article at all, including that article on Education in Japan? Can you find reliable sources showing that it is, indeed, a key statute, that this is the law's actual name, and that the article is factual? Can you verify it?-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The Japanese wiki is not known for its extensive verification requirements (indeed, references there are as rare as can be). Nor does it have the same criteria of notability. its existence on another wiki does not mean it is notable here.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wrUUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=J8QDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7146,2137971&dq=the-fundamental-law-of-education
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22The+Fundamental+Law+of+Education%22&cf=all
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Fundamental%20Law%20of%20Education%22
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/179408/education/47705/Education-after-World-War-II
http://www.mext.go.jp/english/org/struct/006.htm — Rankiri (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep National law mandates education and has shaped the twelve years of compulsory and voluntary education of tens of millions of Japanese born since 1940 or so. Fg2 (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As mentioned above, it has influenced a large number of people. This caused a notable impact on history. Dream Focus 16:40, 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 merge and redirect to Football Icon. — Aitias // discussion 00:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hurrell[edit]

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

Contested PROD, reason given was; "Winning the television talent contest is a substantial claim to notability; the referenced article appears to be as much about Hurrell as his football career".

However, WP:NOTNEWS states "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."

His footballing career alone does not pass the criteria for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE, as he has never played in a fully-professional league/competition. --Jimbo[online] 13:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete - not notable for a stand-alone article, but his career perhaps deserves a mention at the Football Icon page. GiantSnowman 13:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless I am mistaken, he passes the first criterion of WP:ATHLETE as having "competed at the fully professional level of a sport". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the clubs he has played for are fully professional. Cool3 (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Delete. Turns out I was mistaken. Cool3 (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Football Icon. Subject does not meet WP:ATHLETE, as nominator points out. Claim to notability per WP:BIO appears somewhat weaker than I thought when de-PRODding, as it's predicated on coverage linked Football Icon. At the very least, "Sam Hurrell" is a credible search term, suggesting a redirect would be appropriate. CJPargeter (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there something I'm missing? Isn't Chelsea F.C. a fully professional club? And at least to my underinformed eyes, St Albans City F.C. looks like one too. Cool3 (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Chelsea is a fully-professional club in a fully-pro league, but Hurrell never made an appearance for them. Hundreds of kids go through club academies but never play in a competitive match. St Albans aren't a professional club, even if they were, the league(s) they've played in has to be fully-professional for him to qualify. A list of fully-pro leagues can be found at WP:FPL. --Jimbo[online] 15:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, thank you. Cool3 (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Football Icon. Subject fails WP:ATHLETE by never having played at a fully professional level of the sport. His claim to notability rests only on having won the talent show, so per WP:NOTNEWS, he is not personally notable, though he should be covered in the article about the show. As CJPargeter points out, his name is a credible search term, so merge and redirect seems the best option. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Football Icon as player did not make the required level for footballer and therefore a bit WP:ONEEVENTish, unlike winner of series 2 who actually did become a footballer of note. --ClubOranjeT 02:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Football Icone per comments above. --Angelo (talk) 10:44, 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 redirect to Prospekt's March. Cirt (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postcards from Far Away[edit]

Postcards from Far Away (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable song which has not ranked on national or significant music chart, won significant awards or honors, or has been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups. Fails WP:NSONGS. I previously redirected and nominated for PROD but these have been reverted. JD554 (talk) 12:41, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creative (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song, never released as a single, released as a download only and made it all the way to 94 in the UK singles charts. As far as I can tell, the song is a track on an album or EP which doesn't have an article. Recommend redirecting to Leon Jackson. Note that this article is a magnet for sock puppets of the indefinitely blocked troll Nimbley6, who may well pop up to vote in this AfD. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Right Now (Leon Jackson album). The information about the single's chart position etc is all contained in that article. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - heh, missed Right Now (Leon Jackson album)! There's been so much Nimbley6-generated nonsense it's difficult to keep track of what's been kept and what's been deleted. I've struck the relevant part of my nom accordingly, and I'm happy to agree with your redirect suggestion. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep!! --89.240.129.91 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — 89.240.129.91 (talk.. contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Keep Article, Maybe not released as a CD single but was released as a download. I See alot of stticles of songs released a download only and they havnt been delete. Why this one?? Huh?? Keep--BEP66 (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: even ignoring Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, perhaps because those "stticles" are about notable songs that got higher than 94 in the charts? Incidentally, aren't you Nimbley6? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Even tho the song did reach only 94 in the UK Singles Chart. Does That Matter atol!!. In my opion No, that doesnt matter. If the song didnt chart then Yes. The article would be deleted and i would vote Yes if the song didnt chart. But the song did chart in the UK Top 100. And no, Im am Not Nimbley 6. --BEP66 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: my mistake; it's just that your close attention to spelling and grammar is identical. Perhaps you studied under the same guru? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Oops Silly Me. It's just becuase i feel this article shouldnt be scraped from Wikipedia. It's just like saying "He Guys, Lets delete the Freddie Mercury article becuase he is dead". But i do strongly agree that this article should not be deleted just becuase it failed to enter the Top 40 and did not chart in Ireland. --BEP66 (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hey, that's uncanny! An IP editor just made that exact same edit, before it reverted itself! Curiously, the IP address resolves to Nimbley6's ISP, Opal Telecom. Are you sure you're not Nimbley6, because your edits and the IP's edits sure do look familiar. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment:If You dont believe im not this "Nimbley 6" Charecter then fine. But I am no Nimbley 6. My Internet had stoped working and had loged me out of my account. I Didn't relise that. My Fault Sorry! --BEP66 (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • So you acknowledge that the IP which !voted above and the registered editor which !voted above are one and the same? In other words, you acknowledge that you !voted twice? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No I Didn't Vote twice. But what i happening with this article? Deleted or Not? --BEP66 (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • ??? The IP !voted, and BEP66 !voted. BEP66 and the IP are, according to you, the same. Therefore you !voted twice. Are you now trying to claim that you're not the IP? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • OK! Well i voted Twice. I Do feel this article shouldnt be deleted. Yet again i only voteted twice becuase i didnt know i was loged out. Im Sorry! --BEP66 (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Right, so you'll now be striking one of your !votes, now that you realise that you (ahem!) accidentally !voted twice...? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Yes i will score one of the votes. I Didnt relized i was logged out (My Bad). But anyway. Is this article going to be deleted. How about i aprove the article? --BEP66 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Well go on then. Instead of posting messages about how you're going to post a message striking one of your dubious !votes, how about posting a message in which you actually, you know, do what you're promising to do? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                              • There You Go! But as in for the article? --BEP66 (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Thank you. What happens to the article is decided here by consensus. Typically an admin will come along and gauge what the consensus is, taking policy into consideration (and - purely hypothetically - whether any editors have been blocked for anything since !voting). Right now two editors are arguing for a redirect to Right Now (Leon Jackson album), and one is arguing that this single is notable and therefore deserves its own article. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (undent) I Feel this article should stay as it is and shouldnt be redirected to Right Now!. --BEP66 (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Right Now (Leon Jackson album). No merge necessary since stuff is there already. No prejudice to recreation if this charts and gets more coverage. BEP66, note that it shouldn't really have a separate article until that point - the redirect should be fine. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No I Disagree there, The song deserves it own article! --BEP66 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the song reached 90-something in the UK Singles Chart, and although the top 200 songs are compiled, the official chart is only considered to contain the top 75 songs. That means it officially failed to chart. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that doesnt matter. It Made the UK Top 100, Chart Positions dont matter. The song didnt fail to chart. Charting outside the top 200 is failing to chart. --BEP66 (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlikely redirect term, fails notability guidelines established per WP:NSONGS as it barely charted and did not receive third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-plausible redirect term, fails the criteria in WP:MUSIC#Songs. While it may have charted, there is not "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Lacks significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Tenpound and Esradekan. Not a plausible search term, and no secondary coverage. FingersOnRoids 01:18, 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 redirect to Meet the Fockers#Sequel. Cirt (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fockers[edit]

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

As stated in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films, films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. This article has no sources at all. DAJF (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect To Meet the Fockers#Sequel - not enough info to justify a stand alone article currently. Hipocrite (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The problem with a redirect is that there is no reliable evidence that the film will even be called "Little Fockers". --DAJF (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - The name is being used as the sequel based on stuff like this. -- Whpq (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/userfy/redirect without prejudice. There were recent reports of "talks" with the principals to bring them back together for another sequel [41], [42], [43], and DeNiro is reported this month to have actually signed [44], [45], [46]... and there is a charity auction where one one of the items for sale is "Visit Ben Stiller or Robert DeNiro on the set of Little Fockers" [47]. So the name seems likely, pre-production seems underway, and as such, the sequel is receiving coverage. When filming commences, let it back. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:04, 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 speedy delete. G4 Tone 20:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arturs Vaiculis[edit]

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

Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league or cup competition. Article was previously deleted last year after being nominated for deletion. Contested PROD. Bully Wee (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Passes WP:ATHLETE. Subject is a fully professional footballer who plays in the Scottish Premier League, which is at the top level of the Scottish football league system — above the Scottish Football League. Varbas (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He does not pass WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a game in the Scottish Premier League! Bully Wee (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user was determined to be using multiple accounts during a sockpuppet investigation of a user banned for a string of socks used in AFDs to give faulty reasons to keep articles. Not sure why he isn't blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Varbas (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, the investigation found that you were using multiple accounts, and made a ruling that it was possible that the account was, in fact, being used by the banned editor but that not enough info was in yet. This is not the same as a finding of "not guilty". Misrepresenting sockpuppet investigation results with fake legalese to try to sound vindicated when you are not is highly deceptive. DreamGuy (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal comments attacking me are not helpful to this discussion. Please follow your Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Varbas (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting the closing admin be aware of a potentially invalid !vote, per standards. DreamGuy (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Also endorse Speedy Delete per Jimbo online, below). DreamGuy (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 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. Although a fair case can be presented for that the person has verifiably fought in a boxing match, and that that there is one source which covers the person (this one) beyond mere result tables, the consensus still appears to be against keeping the article. The talk here about the subject also appears to be largely limited to internet memes and Youtube videos, which is a fairly weak foundation for basing an article. The boxing match was played in a school gym, and a further reasonable argument for deletion has been presented that the claims of being a professional boxer due to fighting and losing a single match, are little more than claims. Since the latter view has a rather large majority behind it, and present quite strong arguments, I belive that there is a rough consensus for deletion in this case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Zelenoff[edit]

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

Reason Lordvolton (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I stumbled upon a link to the Charlie Zelenoff article on the Kimbo Slice page. A quick perusal of the discussion page and I saw that another user had already highlighted the issues. I've removed the link from the Kimbo Slice article. This appears to be a hoax page.[reply]

Even if he did lose a fight to someone 1-13 (1 win 13 losses) it's not relevant.

Lordvolton (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, what made you think it was a hoax?--Vintagekits (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment, if you had read WP:ATHLETE you would have seen that People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport pass the notability criteria. As Zelenoff has had a pro fight (and another) on the way then he passes that criteria. He is notable not for his achievement but almost for his lack of it. A quick Google search would have satisfied that.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Zelenoff is a bit of an internet meme in boxing circles. Just Google him. I vote keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.142.128 (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak deleteDelete - WP:ATHLETE doesn't work for most combat sports (boxing/MMA) because the status of being a "professional" in those sports is not equal to being a professional in say the NFL. While there's lots of talk about Zelenoff on forums etc, I didn't see much of significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:GNG), but as I'm sure some exists I'll go weak delete. --aktsu (t / c) 08:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'll go "delete" and rather change it depending on if some significant coverage turns up. --aktsu (t / c) 08:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually boxing and MMA are completely different in terms of their set up and structure - The vast majority of boxers fight as amateurs and less than 10% ever make it professional.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Zelenoff have any amateur fight though? I get the impression that, while not smart if you want to have a legitimate career, it certainly possible to go straight to pro meaning we have quite the shortcut to be eligible for an article (maybe I should go get beat up to get my own article as well?). --aktsu (t / c) 09:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look forward to your debut and I'll be sure to get the PPV! ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, simply having one professional fight passes WP:ATHLETE much like playing one game for a soccer team. However, Zelenoff is now coming up for is second fight.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ATHLETE: "[...] conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Is there any "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to show notability beside that (IMO faulty) criteria? --aktsu (t / c) 09:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BoxRec is a pretty reliable source and he shows up on a number of their pages.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but that's about it. No mentions in news articles, no articles about him (that I could find; the one in the article does not come off as a reliable source), nothing. I don't think being listed at BoxRec equals the significant coverage in multiple sources WP:BIO calls for (which is what we should be looking for). --aktsu (t / c) 13:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although we dont count forum "chatter" here - a quicl Google search will tell you that this guy aint just your usual novice. He has a profile on BoxRec as well as Make-A-Fight and there is a full report on him FightFax (if you want to spend the 20 bucks on it) as well as the athletic commision suspension report. There is also article with regards his debut on Boxing Confidential and there was a report of his debut fight that was on Deep South Boxing which is reproduced on his Boxrec profile. Without crystal balling this, I am sure there will be more articles over the next month with his next fight coming up.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. One sanctioned fight held in a middle-school gym + pissing off people by smacktalking online does not equal notable in my book. Not that my opinion by itself really matter, but the boxing-media seems to agree by not covering him at all. --aktsu (t / c) 14:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess so. However, it reminds me of the discussions with regards the Kimbo Slice article that used to rage prior to his fight with Mercer. Obviously Zelenoff is a comedy act imo but its not necessarily the quality of the athelete that makes them notable sometimes its the lack of quality - e.g. Eddie the Eagle and Eric the Eel.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current pro fighter, even if a dreadful one and internet meme. There is quite a bit of chatter about about him in boxing circles and Youtube. His method of self promotion might well become the norm for more boxers in the future too so reference back to him is likely to be made for years. --LiamE (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's not a professional fighter. He fought at an Arkansas middle school. Are the spoofers making comments on this article? It needs to be deleted. The whole point of this article is to make a mockery of Wikipedia and link to notable fighters.
Here is a link to the fight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlxtDLPKnDA
The comments beneath it are interesting, "Just to let you guys know, you have been scammed for the last year. charlie zelenoff was a student at UCLA doing comedy for a class he was taking. i would say he was pretty successful after the first 3 months with the height of his popularity. now he does it to make a name for himself and to make money on the side. his goal is satire and to become an internet legend. charlie planned to quit before the fight started. his real name aint even charlie zelenoff. folks he is acting."
I guess we're not cooperating? I highly doubt this fight was sanctioned, but even it were he's not notable for anything other than trying and failing at being an internet legend. We're left deleting his spoof articles about himself and links on the Kimbo Slice page. We probably need to figure out which account he's using. Lordvolton (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, without getting into the merits or demerits of the points made above I would just like to point out that this delete !vote is made by the nominator of the AfD, just so as to avoid any double counting.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A single fight does not qualify as competing "at the fully professional level of a sport" as per WP:Athlete, in my opinion. Will he be notable in the future? Maybe, but that's WP:Speculation. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, actually its does qualify as competing "at the fully professional level of a sport" as per WP:Athlete. Zelenoff holds a porfessional licence which was issued by the Athletic Commision in the State of Arkansas. Not that he needs it but he is also scheduled to have his second fight, this is not WP:Speculation and this fight has been registered with the state commision and is listed on BoxRec.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there is a precident set out for similar individuals involved in sporting activity that this type of individual passes WP:ATHLETE. See the recent AfD for Christopher Roberto Ortega. Here is an inidividual who has played just a portion of a single play of soccer and this was deemed to have passed WP:ATHELTE. I would suggest that unless there is a breakdown for every sport with regards what is and what isnt or what does and what doesnt pass the line then WP:ATHELTE stands. Does a guy that has just driven 1 F1 race pass? does a pro golfer that is on the European tour but has never won a tournament pass? etc etc. Zelenoff is an idiot in my eyes and a pretty embarrassing one as well but that is part of his notability. He has qualified for a pro licence and has competed as a pro - that in my eyes crosses the line.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He is only "notable" among the editors of Wikipedia who must put up with his antics. In his attempt to become an "internet sensation" he's wasted a lot of our time. He needs to stop wasting our time and invest those energies in becoming notable. A spoof fight that didn't even last a single round isn't going to be enough. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry who creates a Youtube page with something marginally amusing is as notable as the alias Charlie Zelenoff. Thankfully most of them don't resort to blatant self promotion on Wikipedia to achieve their goals. Lordvolton (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, now you are just ranting, which doesnt suprise me to be honest as in my opinion you havent come up with anything logical yet. To my knowledge Zelenoff has never edited wikipedia so I dont understand your comment saying "He is only "notable" among the editors of Wikipedia who must put up with his antics". Also please explain what you mean by a "spoof fight" - are you saying it didnt happen? are you saying the state athletic commision didnt sanction it? are you saying Slug Out didnt promote it? are you saying the official record of the fight on BoxRec and Fight Fax is a fake? I am no fan of Zelenoff but I am intrigued by the guy and his story, but that doesnt mean he is a fake, he is very much for real.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:43, 5 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.
  • Keep Being a delusional / troll meme for a long period of time. He has gained quite a status challenging Deontay Wilder and others. – Wayfarer (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2024 (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. لennavecia 15:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isa Bagci[edit]

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

Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league or cup competition. Contested PROD. Bully Wee (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Passes WP:ATHLETE. Subject is a fully professional footballer who plays in the Scottish Premier League, which is at the top level of the Scottish football league system — above the Scottish Football League. Varbas (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has been blocked as sock of banned User:Azviz now. DreamGuy (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He does not pass WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a game in the Scottish Premier League! Bully Wee (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user was determined to be using multiple accounts during a sockpuppet investigation of a user banned for a string of socks used in AFDs to give faulty reasons to keep articles. Not sure why he isn't blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Varbas (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, the investigation found that you were using multiple accounts, and made a ruling that it was possible that the account was, in fact, being used by the banned editor but that not enough info was in yet. This is not the same as a finding of "not guilty". Misrepresenting sockpuppet investigation results with fake legalese to try to sound vindicated when you are not is highly deceptive... and, curiously, a tactic that the banned editor had also used in the past. DreamGuy (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal comments attacking me are not helpful to this discussion. Please abide by your Wikipedia:Editing restrictions that have been placed on you by the Arbitration Committee. Varbas (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My editing restrictions do not in any way prohibit me from making the closing admin aware of potentially invalid !votes, and accurately pointing out that you are misrepresenting facts is not a personal attack. The proper way to avoid having people point out misbehavior is to not misbehave in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how your WP:BF allegations make my "vote" invalid. Varbas (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Banned users do not get to vote, so your votes are, as I said, "potentially invalid !votes", as you are currently under investigation. That's not bad faith, that's a simple fact. The closing admin should be aware of it, per AFD standards. DreamGuy (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails our standards for athletes in general and specifically for his field of play. DreamGuy (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 22:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 22:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure of WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To be a notable athlete you have to not just be on a team, but make an actual appearance in a regular game. That it takes actual play is I think generally agreed, and makes sense too , as an analogy will all other lines of endeavor. Notability is doing something notable, not just preparing to. DGG (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, he has never played for the Rangers first team. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete, the lad has yet to appear for the Gers; when he does, the page came be re-created. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta – Poland relations[edit]

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

    Yet another X-Y relations page. None of these pages are notable and are just random pickings. Angria77 Banter, Edits 17:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete almost all the coverage is in a multilateral context especially as these 2 countries were new members of an enlarged EU. there was one state visit earlier this year [48] but that doesn't make for an article. + non resident embassies. LibStar (talk) 15:21, 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. لennavecia 16:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Prince Phumulani Nyoni[edit]

    Prince Phumulani Nyoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not a notable personality. Article resembles a facebook page and appears to be self-publicity, fails WP:N

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - did a quick clean-up but then looked for notability, there is none! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete NN, despite numerous "sources". feydey (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete: Main claim to notability seems to be that he has a job. 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) 08:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retinaldehyde Nitroethane Jasmonate[edit]

    Retinaldehyde Nitroethane Jasmonate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article appears to be a hoax regarding a fictional substance used as a plot device in an upcoming independent film. Aside from the fact that the purported chemical name "retinaldehyde nitroethane jasmonate" is nonsensical in terms of IUPAC conventions, a google search reveals the only mention of this phrase is in connection with an independent film called "Jake's Dead" (see, e.g., this Facebook page). It seems plausible the originator of this article (whose only contribution is this article) is connected with that film, and created this article as part of a "viral marketing" project. Ryanaxp (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Hoax that violates the GFDL (since no attribution was given by the copy-and-paster). Deor (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. and 66.57.4.17; this "substance" finds no mention in Google Scholar, Ghits seem to be all WP mirrors or connected with this film. JohnCD (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - an IP, 76.126.178.169, who made several minor corrections to the article soon after it was input by the author Ttb543 (talk · contribs) and may well be the author editing logged-out, has now added to the head of the article the sentence: "This article refers to the substance known as RnJ from the Feature Film Jake's Dead". This confirms the nominator's suspicions, and confirms that the article should be deleted as (a) the subject is a non-notable fictional substance, (b) having been cut-and-pasted from three separate articles it is scientific nonsense, and (c) Wikipedia is not for promotion. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 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. Deletion probably isn't the best tool to correct wrong dates with. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 17:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sweet Robots Against the Machine[edit]

    Sweet_Robots_Against_the_Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

    Absolutely wrong article!!! First album of Sweet Robots Against the Machine was released in 1997!!! NOT IN 1999!!! And this tow albums can not be the versions of each other - it's different releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeirloomXX (talk • contribs) 2009/05/25 15:45:56

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:28, 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 Wrong venue. As said, WP:RFD is the place to go for this. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 16:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Albino[edit]

    The_Albino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

    Directed page contains no references to "The Albino" whatsoever. Cokehabit (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy close. Redirects for discussion are at WP:RFD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:20, 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) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary Pease[edit]

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

    Not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete If it could be a hoax, it's not an acceptable article on a living person. Hipocrite (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A hoax? The link to the Internet Movie Database would show the person is real. Dream Focus 11:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [49] Hipocrite (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I added a list of all of his television and film roles. All of his television appearances, have been for notable television shows. His total career makes him notable. Dream Focus 11:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - He does not meet any of the criteria under WP:ENT, all of the roles listed are clearly minor. In any case, that would only have established a presumption of notability. To actually be notable, we would need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. IMDb is not a reliable source, so we have no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Has anyone seen any of these episodes? Was his role in at least two of them significant? If so, he meets the criteria. Dream Focus 23:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete in the absence of any reliable sources that discuss this person (imdb seems to be it). As an actor, he has won no major awards or otherwise been recognized as making a significant contribution to his field. Fails bio.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - What we have is evidence he is a working actor, not evidence hat he is a notable actor. -- Whpq (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Unless reliable independent sources appear we must delete for now. -- Banjeboi 23:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - per nom, does not meet notability, need independent reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Might be notable someday, but today isn't it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Craig L. Russell (software architect)[edit]

    Craig L. Russell (software architect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No real notability shown. BLP lacking reliable sources, none found Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete -- fails notability requirements. Based upon the edit history and the license of the photo, the article is either an autobiography by the subject or the photo has a false license. DreamGuy (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - appears to have co-authored at least one O'Reilly manual. Possible notability. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: You found no sources? Okay, here's 35 Google news hits, 80 Google scholar hits, and 20 Google book hits (a couple of which aren't him, but most are). I believe there's enough there to establish notability. And autobiography isn't a reason to delete, in any case. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found no independent reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject. Do any of your hits satisfy the guidelines suggested by wikipedia policies? Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Are you changing the rationale for the AFD? I was talking about notability (per the rationale) not whether there are sufficient sources to write an article about someone we agree is notable. So far as notability goes:
          • WP:CREATIVE: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Google Scholar appears to show him easily qualifying here.
          • WP:CREATIVE: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Again, Google Scholar shows he was an author of the Object Data Standard; this ACM search shows it's been cited dozens of times.
          • WP:ACADEMIC: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources...the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work. See previous.
          • WP:ACADEMIC: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity...may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study. I note that Java Data Objects, which he co-authored, is held in over 100 libraries and was published by O'Reilly.
          • He contributed to 97 Things Every Software Architect Should Know (ISBN 9780596522698, also published by O'Reilly); contributors are described as "today's leading software architects."
        And so on, and so on. He qualifies under both WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACADEMIC in terms of citations; now it's just a matter of finding sources that talk about the person and not just his work. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Who is this we you talk of? Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • PS. I concede I did not consider the true relevence of the google scholar hits before my reply, I have not looked enough at what relevence the results are. When I said about reliable sources, "none found". I was meaning independent reliable sources ABOUT Mr Russell. I concede that citations and influences may make him notable but I'll leave that up to someone who better underdstands such requirements. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Subject clearly passes notability requirements as shown by Dori. Article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Varbas (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing admin: Above user has been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned account User:Azviz. I have removed his comments as banned users aren't allowed to post under new accounts. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dori did not show that the "Subject clearly passes notability requirements". Hits are not reliable sources. Varbas (and other editor name used) knows that. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:47, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sudarsan Yennamalli M.[edit]

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

    A young artist with only one exhibition to his credit. No notability at this time or references to indicated any notability freshacconci talktalk 10:03, 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) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Garrett[edit]

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

    No clear notability established, no inline citations, no articles on books authored. If the subject passes the notability criterion, it's not clear what the basis is. Pete (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Google news gives me nothing. I'm really unsure what claim to notability I'm supposed to be even searching for here. It's a common name, but there are no claims to notability here (other than book authorship, and the books don't appear to have articles or be particularly notable). Shadowjams (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:BIO no RS of him or his books (and remember the fact that he's written books is not enough, it's that people have written about *him* or the books). --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Cannot be rescued since no good sources exist - Vartanza (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per above. And the rescue template has become a joke. Tagged on anything, regardless of whether or not it's worthy of improvement or inclusion. لennavecia 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discussion regarding rescue template moved to talk page. لennavecia 04:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment re: Rescue tag. Drawn some has added the Rescue tag[50] seemingly indiscriminately to about 100 60 articles in the past two days. I am reverting most of them. Fences and windows (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Wasn't even considering a major contributor of two of the four books that were listed as written by him, only secondary co-author on the remaining two, no reliable independent sources demonstrating notability on his own. DreamGuy (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing administrator: If the consensus is to "delete," rather than complete deletion, this article should be turned into a redirect to Chris Garrett (Oregon politician) (or that article should be moved here). -Pete (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I follow... "complete deletion" is a different vote from "Delete"? I would agree that if this is deleted the existing article should be more readily accessible, either through a redirect or page move. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm never really sure how detailed to make comments here. Maybe my point is just obvious, and I shouldn't have bothered. Sorry! -Pete (talk)
    Pete, you're right. Good note. لennavecia 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless appropriate references are forthcoming, the article ought to be deleted. The use of the {{rescue}} tag is entirely appropriate, given the high number of hits the title of the article gets on Google News etc.  Skomorokh  22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, it is appropriate, in fact, this is exactly the situation for which it was created. Drawn Some (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Unreferenced bio. Hipocrite (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I have a blog, do I get an article too? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Despite the many "delete" votes, Mr. Garrett clearly is notable per WP:BIO as he as works in "many significant libraries". WorldCat shows his programming book held by only 40 something libraries but they are mostly university libraries and his second book is held by over 170 libraries. Primary sources may be used to verify an article. Drawn Some (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no reliable sources that discuss the subject of a BLP beyond en passant? No encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:22, 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 speedy close (non-admin closure). Article has been redirected to Simon the Sorcerer series#Simon the Sorcerer 5 - Who'd Even Want Contact?!. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Simon the Sorcerer 5[edit]

    Simon the Sorcerer 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non notable video game. Violates WP:Crystal as well. Shadowjams (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The original creator has redirected this article to Simon the Sorcerer series#Simon the Sorcerer 5 - Who'd Even Want Contact?!, which honestly seems like a good idea to me. Apparently the game has already been released in Germany and is scheduled to be released in June in the UK according to IGN. One could probably make an argument for notability based on its release in Germany, but considering the article consisted of a one-line stub I'm fine with leaving it redirecting to the series article until its section there is long enough to split off. BryanG (talk) 14:49, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Padukone (village)[edit]

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

    Village in India. I've cleaned it up and added geo coodinates. But I still cannot find any formal mention of the village or town. None of the mapping options appear to have it, and I cannot find any news sources with it (although it is a common last name with a disambig page). I would be convinced by any formal recognition of the village, but I cannot find any in the searches I've done. Shadowjams (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Go to http://maps.google.co.in/ and type in Padukone, click "see all 52 results", it is right where the article says it is, on the coast 11 miles north of Kundapura on the Souparnika River. Drawn Some (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My only concern is that those are wikimaps added locations. Shadowjams (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It is a village in Kundapura taluk of Udupi district in Karnataka. [51] Salih (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That link is for an actress with the last name "Padukone". I don't see any reference to the village. Shadowjams (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a reference. Please read the article carefully. Salih (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see: "The fact is that our elders hail from the same village Padukone in Kundapura taluk of Udupi district in Karnataka." Shadowjams (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This article[52] also shows it exists ("In Kundapur taluk, overflowing Souparnika river has created a panicky situation in villages like Chikalli, Padukone, Herikudru, Badakere etc."). I'm sure there are also many non-English sources. The first link doesn't seem to be working now, but here's another article about a church in Padukone.[53]. Priyanath talk 05:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I would note that all of these references merely prove the existence of the village, rather than anything about its notability. However, most geographic or natural features are inherently notable if they're acknowledged by reliable sources, and I believe this qualifies. Shadowjams (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's just how I was thinking, too. Priyanath talk 05:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - It's an actual village. Towns, villages and population centers are inherently notable regardless of size. I recommend closing this AfD as even the nominator is acknowledging its notability. --Oakshade (talk) 17:35, 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 keep. Two acceptable sources have been found and the nominator changed their mind. No longer any calls for deletion in the debate. Mgm|(talk) 09:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    HelpNDoc[edit]

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

    Apparently non-notable piece of software, produced by a non-notable company. A google news search gives three insubstantial references: one from a local paper, one from PC World associated with a download link and therefore arguably commercial, and one from a source on which we have no article. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    NB: have later switched to weak keep after sources were provided Gonzonoir (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from Jonjbar (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)jonjbar[reply]

    Gonzonoir, here are some reviews and facts about HelpNDoc which might be helpful:

    Response from Jonjbar (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Softpedia is first and foremost a software depository. Its editors can be quite indiscriminate in their coverage and occasionally review the type of software that doesn't seem have any notability whatsoever. Some of their recent reviews cover such low-profile subjects as "BitDefender Total Security 2010 Beta - Novice Mode", "BitDefender Total Security 2010 Beta - Advanced Mode", "Cornerstone Bible - The Perfect Bible Study Tool", "Startup Programs Buddy", and so forth. Would you support creating two additional BitDefender mode-related articles as well? So, the way I see it, the Softpedia review alone just does not satisfy WP:N and the rest of the sources you mentioned all seem to fail WP:SOURCES in one way or the other. Perhaps if I see another in-depth review that can be used as a reliable indicator of notability, I will change my position to keep. — Rankiri (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Since it looks like this AfD may turn on the reliability of the sources, I've made a request for input on the ones you've listed over at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I've also read up on the reliability guidelines and checked over each of the sources you listed. One relevant guideline is on self-published sources: it specifies that, where sites are self-published (i.e. don't have established editorial processes to meet the standards of WP:RS), we should check whether individual contributors to such sites are experts who also write for other, reliable sources. With that in mind, I think the following of the sources you provided don't meet our reliability guidelines:
    • Independent review by 3D3F software directory
    • This site doesn't provide any authorship information or any details of its editorial processes, so I think can't be deemed reliable. The only name I can find attached to the site is Michael Monashev, and I can't find any evidence of his authority.
    • Neither of the Free Download Center reviews is attributed to an author. The site itself provides no information about its editorial processes so there's no indication it meets reliability standards.
    • No authorship details provided; the sites About page provides no indication of reliability. Doesn't look to me as though it clears our self-published sources guideline.
    • No authorship information available for checking authority; parent site appears to be effectively run by one person, who himself doesn't seem to have authority beyond the site.
    • 'Partial' independence probably isn't enough; this site reads to me as promotional.
    There's also
    • No authorship information is given, but my Portuguese isn't up to establishing whether this is a good source.
    So that leaves:
    • Independent review by indoition in the "Low-cost tools" section
    • Tending to view this as an acceptable source.

    To me, this still looks thin, and I'm still leaning delete. I'd like to know what others think of the sources. But then, that's why we're at AfD :) Gonzonoir (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by Jonjbar (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Softpedia's reviewer, Codrut Nistor clearly seems impartial as shown by the many reviews he has written for the web-site (545 according to google). Its reviews doesn't target only the best software:[reply]

    • Only 2/5 stars and noted as "Fair". The reviewer says: "This program is unbalanced, because it offers some interesting and useful features but also lacks some basic ones, and if I should have the money for it, I would keep using The Gimp and buy a really useful commercial program."
    • 1/5 stars and noted as "Poor". He says: "I will be honest - to me, this program is featureless, buggy as hell and I wouldn't use it again until its fifth or sixth final version!"
    • 2/5 stars and noted as "Fair". He says: "There's one thing that makes me really sad about this program, the fact that all this work put into it could have produced an excellent two pane file manager, but the way things are, XYplorer is too expensive to worth its price."
    • "Good" with 3/5 stars
    • "Fair" with 2/5 stars
    • "Fair" with 2/5 stars
    • and the list goes on...

    This makes me think the reviewer is clearly independent and impartial and shows that the in-depth review he gave HelpNDoc can be trusted. Jonjbar (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Indoition, for me is still the equivalent of a blog. About the only source that might be useable is Softpedia, and that's a weak one. So given all of this, there isn't the coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from Jonjbar (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Other reference sources I can find include:

    Keep. The two reviews by Softpedia[54] and Boston Broadside[55] seem to fairly sufficient to pass a WP:N check. I'm changing my position to keep. — Rankiri (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm glad we agree. Thank you for taking the time to review all the listed content. Jonjbar (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep With the caveat that this is not my field and I'm not totally convinced of the calibre of any of these sources, you've demonstrated at least that the software has been covered in multiple sources that appear independent. Though I was nominator, I'm switching to a weak keep. Gonzonoir (talk)
    • Thank you for your input Gonzonoir and for taking the time to review the content. Jonjbar (talk) 13:23, 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) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fiona Handbury[edit]

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

    fails WP:BIO. not much coverage, most coverage mentions her in the context of her husband Matt Handbury who gets mentions in the media because he is the nephew of the actually notable Rupert Murdoch. WP:NOTINHERITED if I ever saw it. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 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) 08:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of firsts in the United States[edit]

    List of firsts in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Appears to be a wildly mismatched list of trivia of the sort one might find in a bathroom book or a very confused almanac. Non-encyclopedic. jengod (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Trivia. An unlikely search term and also a conglomeration of hard-to-define standards for what constitutes a notable "first." Shadowjams (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Surprising that this didn't get nominated last year when it first went up. Not that I really need a source to tell me that George Washington was the first President of the United States, but this has been pieced together from people asking "Guess what?" and then sharing their knowledge about something being the first. I'm guessing that these are some favorite factoids from a book about the American Presidents. As the old saying goes, "There's a first time for everything", so this one would just go on and on. There's another yawner called "List of Firsts" that has the same problems. Maybe these pages can be redirected to Famous First Facts by Joseph Nathan Kane, which is more comprehensive than any Wikipedia page could be. Mandsford (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Trivia. No real standards for inclusion Hipocrite (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is a very arbitrary list of trivia. LovesMacs (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom Bulldog123 19:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If this is to go, then it, List of firsts in Sweden, and List of firsts in India should be merged back into List of firsts until it goes too. Of course actually doing it before it is required is a WP:POINT voilation for me because IMHO it is WRONG! Mark Hurd (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably they should. The problem is that a list of this type has no criteria for inclusion other than the instance be a "first". Some of these examples seem reasonable, like first female to hold political office, but the list itself is inherently plagued by criteria issues. Lists require different consideration than articles because lists can be any permutation of notable criteria possibly expanding the number of lists exponentially. Very specific lists let editors know what they're talking about, and if that's notable or not. The problem with very vague lists (it cannot get more vague) is that they are nearly impossible to asses, unless their criteria is narrowly tailored. In the cases the list is narrowly tailored, it makes sense for the name to be similarly narrow. This list is neither. Shadowjams (talk) 08:47, 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. Merging non notable things is not really a solution. Merging is a good solution for things that have some notability but not sufficient to meet WP:N. But despite being deleted once before (the first article I mean), having existed for years, and being listed at AfD, the ARS page and the NICK project for a week, not one independent source has been provided for any of these. There is no deadline, but there is a burden on those wanting to keep things in any form when challenged, and no one has even started on this. Fram (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nicktoons Summer Beach House[edit]

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

    This, and all of the following nominations of Nickelodeon program blocks are nothing more than unsourced schedules and branding efforts that recieved no coverage outside of Nickelodeon as the primary source, and are not well-remembered by anyone beyond the original editors of these articles. In the few articles that have sources, they're just links to TV.com and user-generated summaries that just say 'this show aired here and there'. The lead article itself was re-created after a previous deletion vote, much to my surprise. Note that I am not asking for deletion of blocks such as Nick in the Afternoon or U-Pick Live, as those had original content and hosts of their own that ran for more than a select period of months. This nominaton covers blocks which just had bare connections of continuity, lasted less than a season or a programming quarter, and were unremarkable outside of the rest of the regular schedule.

    I am also nominating the following related pages because they are unsourced summaries of Nickelodeon schedules and unremarkable programming blocks:

    Nickelodeon television weekend blocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Nickelodeon TV Weekday Blocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (actually a redirect to the network article)
    Nick Friday Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Nonstop Five at Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Slime Across America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    The Summer Nick Pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    U-Pick Daily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Takes Over Nick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Friday Night Slimetime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    ME:TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Nicktoon Movie Summer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Nickelodeon SLAM! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Moovibot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (this nomination is for a program on Canada's unrelated YTV; however I have included it as meeting the same problems as these Nick articles) Nate • (chatter) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why can't they all be merged into a single article such as Nickelodeon programming blocks? Calling cruft in the nomination falls directly under WP:ITSCRUFT and has a chocolaty layer of scrumptious WP:WHOCARES (also this is kind of helpful). If I were to help you with the merge would you consider withdrawing this afd? ZabMilenko 08:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken out the mention of cruft per your request. This has been a long-simmering problem though. None of these articles have any sources to speak of. Many of them are just schedule rundowns that meet WP:Not a TV Guide, were created at the time of their promotion and then just left to wither on from there. Nickelodeon is infamous for having these types of promotional efforts that go on for three months and then either just wither out or make way for the next 'theme of the (season of the year)'. I think it is time to address this, and as I said, sources need to be found for any of these articles to even earn a weak keep. As it is, they all have only primary sourcing and poor-quality writing and would need serious help to meet the basic standards of a stub. Further on, these articles have very few incoming links into them if you go by their 'what links here' pages. There has been no effort to connect these further to Nickelodeon articles at all, suggesting a lack of cohesiveness or theme to Nickelodeon block articles. Nate • (chatter) 10:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright fair enough. You are hitting many arguments at WP:ATA but I do understand what you are aiming for. I think a merge with List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon will be appropriate for just the sourced and notable stuff, everything else just redirect to the same place and unlink where appropriate. ZabMilenko 11:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    TPH, are you actually saying we include or exclude articles on the basis of the intrinsic artistic quality of the work? DGG (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep/Merge/Listify as appropriate. This is an extremely well-known network so there is little doubt industry sources do exist. This bigger issue, IMHO, is does each entity block actually need its own article and does that help organize this information. Someone more familiar with the programming would likely do a better job than I but looking at all the information as a whole it would seem some logical merging may serve our readers best. Two or three well organized articles may be better than this current set-up. -- Banjeboi 00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I put out a request a week ago to WP:NICK for their help about this, but no one has responded to my request for comment on this AfD. Nate • (chatter) 06:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Merge These perennial marketing names for scheduling gimmicks are not particularly notable. Are any of them written about in a capacity other than merely noting their existence? Gigs (talk) 19:36, 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 keep --Xavexgoem (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Three Blind Mice (record label)[edit]

    Three Blind Mice (record label) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable record label, no third-party reliable sources to find. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 12:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Does not meet notability criteria. Vicenarian (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 06:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect, while I can't find anything either, it seems that there might be more coverage, in Japanese, off the Internet, for this company. Because I'm mindful of systematic bias in cases like this, I think this article ought to be redirected to Japanese jazz. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Important hip independent Japanese jazz label from the 70s. Is a whole chapter (pp. 199–211) of William Minor's book Jazz Journeys to Japan, University of Michigan Press, 2004. See also Charley Gerard, Jazz in Black and White, U Mich, 1998. Brief indications why this label matters are in Kirchner's Oxford Companion, Taylor Atkins' Blue Nippon and the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Japanese Culture. Then look at trade magazines and Japanese sources like Swing Journal etc. 86.44.31.11 (talk) 05:24, 27 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... 04:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per 86.44.31.11's sources. See Jazz Journeys to Japan for example. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep, I have a couple of albums on this label bought here in the UK. A search for "Three Blind Mice label" brings up 243 ghits and I suspect that there are many more sites out there (I included the word "label" after the name so as to differentiate from the song and the band. Add to that another separate 71 ghits for references to "Three Blind Mice record label" in a sentence together, although this also includes this Wikipedia article. Tris2000 (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *Comment. I would go for keep if the references you've found are incorporated into the article, so as to establish verifiable notability. Vicenarian (T · C) 14:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • No, your comment is in effect a "keep". This process is for determining whether an entry is viable. It is not "Articles for Improvement" and you cannot compel others to improve viable entries on threat of deletion. You have as much responsibility as anyone else to improve articles, and here you have already done less than many. Please understand these points, they are important to your work in this area. 86.44.32.209 (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please address any concerns about me specifically on my talk page or via email. An AfD page is for discussing the deletion proposal of an article, not a person. Thank you. Vicenarian (T · C) 18:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • My comments above correspond precisely with those they are posted below. 86.44.32.209 (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment' Previous comment withdrawn due to objection. My reasons for deletion of the article, as stated above, remain. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The sources are there, and they are good. We must work on incorporating them into the text, and expanding it, of course. Vicenarian (T · C) 21:32, 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. Looks like rescued. - Altenmann >t 18:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Team Picture[edit]

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

    Non-notable film. Appears to have had only limited film-festival release and then gone straight to DVD, where it appears to have largely ended up in the online bargain bin. No awards that we can find or other evidence of notability. No notable actors. Contested PROD (why, I'll never figure out). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A far, far cry from meeting notability standards to have its own Wikipedia article. (And the WHY to the reason it was contested is that the editor in question goes around deprodding things for no reason whatsoever and then showing up later to give a Keep vote that doesn't come close to following our standards.) DreamGuy (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Good deprod. Sources found per WP:AFTER. Through rescue, some clean up has been performed since nomination. More can be done certainly, but the improved article meets WP:NF and WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Could you be more specific in how the subject now meets WP:NF? I agree that the article has been improved, but I'm still inclined toward deletion. I can be swayed, though. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well... per WP:NF and WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I believe I have shown that by coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. The portions of NF that refer to a film 5 years after it has been made, do not apply. Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Looking at the references to that many notable third party media sources, I'd say obviously, this article meets the requirements for notability. Dream Focus 09:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - references and reviews are evidence of notability. Varbas (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing admin: Varbas has been banned as sockpuppet of banned User:Azviz. DreamGuy (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing admin Varbas has been indef-blocked (similar to banned) as a puppet of Azviz. The only good that came out of his unprodding this article is that the article has now been improved per WP:AFTER to meet guidelines and concerns. Please look at the before in comparison to the after now that AfD has forced improvement. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:14, 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 00:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Control paradox[edit]

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

    Doesn't show notability, no refs. I looked around and found all kinds of different things people are calling "control paradox", none of which have anything to do with this. Conical Johnson (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I mean it is original research, someone's personal discussion of a topic unaccompanied by any references. It may also be a neologism as the nominator described but I didn't explore that. Drawn Some (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think the "paradox" here is attempting to make an analogy with the barber paradox. (If every man shaves, and the barber shaves every man who doesn't shave himself, who shaves the barber?) = Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But the barber paradox had a set-up; every guy in town has to be clean shaven, there's only barber in town, and anyone who doesn't shave himself has to go to that barber. If he shaves himself, he's breaking his own rule. If he doesn't get a shave, he's breaking the rule. Maybe this is an attempt to imitate the barber paradox, substituting "control" for "shave", but without other conditions. But a true paradox isn't "choose this or that"; it's more like "either choice will be the wrong choice". Maybe someone will come up with the "Wikipedia mass nomination paradox". Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say it was a good analogy, just observing that the barber paradox is based on a syntactically similar statement. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as lacking notability and refs per nom, and WP:OR as also noted above. Nothing more to say. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. GBook search for "control paradox" "free will" [56] returns zero hits. Many of the philosopher Daniel Dennett's writings are about control, and as a philosopher, he also explores many paradoxes, but a Gbook search for "Daniel Dennett" "control paradox" [57] also returns zero hits. The article is shallow, incoherent, and lends itself to OR concerns. Little is lost by loosing that little page. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:16, 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 00:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lydia Mitcham[edit]

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

    It's unclear what's going on here, if it's a mistake or a hoax. I cannot find any WP:RS on the named individual, on google or google news, or in the references provided. However, there is an individual who closely matches the name "Meredith" instead of "Mitcham" who is in some of the references. The children listed in the infobox also have the name Meredith. I would normally change the name and correct it, however the creator's username is similar to the article name, and the name is used a number of times. I want to be sure it's an error and not something else before correcting it. Shadowjams (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Refs don't mention her, article was created by somebody called Mitchamz, her husband I'm guessing. Conical Johnson (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I wouldn't worry too much about a name change in a female, they happen all the time due to marriage or divorce. I see here that her name at one point was "Lydia Mitcham Meredith". However, the four references listed do not constitute in-depth significant coverage to establish notability for her so the article should be deleted. Only three are independent and although she is quoted the articles aren't about her and don't discuss her in any depth. Drawn Some (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That probably explains the name issue. I hadn't found the husband's name, which clears things up. The sources included are reliable, but they don't indicate enough notability. Shadowjams (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - No significant coverage in third-party sources. لennavecia 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also the image is a joke. The clothing appears to have been painted on in MSPaint. To the closing admin, when this article is deleted, that image needs to be taken care of as well. لennavecia 19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Sounds like a very nice, non-notable person. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:11, 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. Consensus is clear Fritzpoll (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Estonia–Luxembourg relations[edit]

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

    I am nominating a 2nd time, as there was very strong consensus from the deletion review to delete this page, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_20 not recreate as an disambiguation page. In the 150 odd bilateral articles in the last 2 months, not 1 has resulted in a disambiguation page, some have been redirected but that has been through consensus in the AfD. I am opening this for specific discussion of whether Estonia-Luxembourg needs to exist even as a disambiguation page. Also there has been some discussion here on the talk page of the admin who decided overturn and delete and subsequently recreation as a disambiguation page User_talk:King_of_Hearts#DRV_closure User_talk:King_of_Hearts#Estonia-Luxembourg_relations LibStar (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Disambiguation pages should be used to differentiate between articles with the same or similar names. This is not a disambiguation page as the articles listed have very different names and so are not ambiguous. The Wikipedia search function for the words in the article name returns the appropriate articles so the page is not only inappropriate but unnecessary. In addition it is a very unlikely search term so it is not appropriate for a redirect. Drawn Some (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    as per WP:DABNAME The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, there is nothing ambiguous about this title the term Estonia–Luxembourg relations refers to relations between these 2 countries and nothing else. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks, that was the missing explanation that I haven't been able to verbalize well. Drawn Some (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There is nothing notable in these relations. Searching Estonia for "Luxembourg", and Luxembourg for "Estonia" shows nothing. In Foreign relations of Estonia we learn when each country recognized the other, and whether or not each has an embassy in the other country (neither do). In Foreign relations of Luxembourg we find the same information. There is no secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails Bilateral relations. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - All that was "merged" (to use the term loosely) was the opening paragraph. A brief, sparse recitation of facts...with no prose, style, or anything to distinguish it from any number of encyclopedic sources where such info is found...was reformatted into a bullet list in each article. This seems a bit flimsy, in terms of copyright, which is solely what the particle's restoration and subsequent redirect was based upon. WP:MAD is an interpretation of policy, it is not policy in itself. Tarc (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I think this does in fact pass the bilateral relations test mentioned by Johniq since both countries are in the EU and probably engaged in significant trade. Notability should be sufficient. I would develop the article on its own rather than have it serve as a disambiguation page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed my vote to Conditional delete explained below.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am changing my vote back to Keep. Upon further research,I do not believe that this article can be deleted if the restrictions on editing in the form of a protection tag remain in place per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion. As I suspected from the first, it makes no sense to delete pages that are not allowed to be improved. I would therefore end this discussion as keep, remove the protection tag, revert the page back to its pre-disambig state, and further improve it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With such a niche topic as "Estonia-Luxembourg relations," I would like to know what significant event would justify this article's existence. For instance, Germany-Namibia relations is justified since Namibia was once a German colony.--WaltCip (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all the discussion is about deleting the disambiguation page that resulted from a consensus to delete the original page as the topic is not notable and any information can be contained in the articles on each country's foreign relations. Second, common membership in the EU is multilateral relations. Third, "probably engaged" etc. is a complete supposition. Fourth, a consensus has been reached that not all of these articles are inherently notable, although I see you stated that elsewhere. Fifth, you have to have significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability and it was already explored extensively just in the past week or so and found that it doesn't exist. Drawn Some (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    agree totally with above. good luck finding reliable sources proving "probably engaged in significant trade". italics added LibStar (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment re: sources about relations > well, this seems to indicate €13.8million of trade in 2007, with mutual trade/business delegations every few years since 1999. Luxembourg investments in Estonia totalled €225million. This is a news article regarding their diplomacy regarding the EU constitution. This might yield something interesting, though I've not looked into it in depth.
    I think that that's enough to be getting on with. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you really look at that stuff? It clearly emphasizes in words how unimportant the trade between the two is, several times. Not important trade partners at all. Do you have a conception of 13.8 million Euros and how that is essentially nothing in terms of trade? Both countries have a GDP of about 30 BILLION Euros. It proves the opposite of what you claim it does. Drawn Some (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. I thought that a source establishing trade worth quite a lot of money (and if it isn't quite a lot of money, you can transfer €13million to my bank account at your convenience), estabishing trade delegations and specifying investment and what form imports and exports take, was quite useful to people inclined to keep the article. Also, this is a news article regarding their diplomacy regarding the EU constitution. This might yield something interesting, though I've not looked into it in depth. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    on the point of trade in 2007, Estonia exported 1.4 million EUR to Luxembourg, yet total exports were USD11.31 billion, so doing the conversion and maths, Luxembourg represented 0.02% of Estonia's total exports! and for imports 0.12%! insignificant. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To Libstar and Drawn Some, as of December 31, 2007, foreign investments made in Estonia originating from Luxembourg totaled 225 million EUR accounting for 2% of the total volume of foreign direct investments, placing them as the tenth largest source of foreign investment. That information was removed to make room for this disambig page for us to discuss. Oh well, I guess the word will never know. Sigh.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - this is getting ridiculous, the consensus was previously to delete on notability grounds, and nothing has changed. Also, there is no need for a disambiguation page. If the rationale for this page is purely GFDL compliance, then it would be much better to merge the histories, and leave this as a red link. PhilKnight (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, inappropriate use of disambiguation page and seems like an end-run around the consensus at the DRV. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extremely weak keep per Cdogsimmons above, and the disambig value of the page. Note to Drawn Some: this comment of "weak keep" does not mean "should be deleted but I like it". ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I !voted keep on some of these relations pages, and delete for others, and this seems to be one of the least useful of all of them. Per others, disambiguations should not be created for this use. No point in having this article with no content - it can easily be recreated later if someone wanted to write a real article with sources (assuming there are enough)YobMod 11:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not a useful disambiguation and its highly unlikely that the relationship between the countries would meet WP:N if an article was written on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not at all a proper dab page, and a clear circumvention of the DRV closure (by the closer himself/herself). Deor (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment from nominator I would like to stress that this existence of this article is a direct contradiction to established procedures of deletion review and WP:DAB. If you see what's been happening, it is an attempt by the admin who's original keep closure decision was clearly overturned in the deletion review to somehow change this decision as shown by these edits [58] and [59] which do not reflect the actual outcome of the deletion review of clear "overturn and delete" not recreate as disambiguation page. (this re-creation was performed on request of the original admin without consensus). LibStar (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC) —The preceding comment was updated 15:52, 2009 May 28[reply]
      • King of Hearts closed the DRV and created the disambiguation page. I think you are confusing people. -- User:Docu
        • Well, i think you have a poor grasp of policy and continue to seek to frustrate policy-based consensus. You asked him to restore the article or "redirect" it.[60] He tried this as a compromise (an outcome i think is incorrect, but respect he was trying to be helpful). Also, a read of WP:SIG would be helpful for you, particularly if you intend to participate in long threaded discussions where time stamps are helpful to all your other editors. You really should know better by now.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you need an additional explanation, you could ask him for it. -- User:Docu
            • The point is, King of Hearts closed the DRV as a delete, and it remained so until you went to his talk page playing the GFDL card. Then it was restored. Please do not depict the initial DRV finding as a decision to merge. Tarc (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The logs are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Estonia%E2%80%93Luxembourg+relations
      http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estonia%E2%80%93Luxembourg_relations&diff=292803836&oldid=292010933
      Just in case one wants to check. -- User:Docu 23:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Is a clearer way of looking at the sequence of events. Docu, can you explain how LibStar is "confusing people" ? Tarc (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how I have anything to do with conversion to a disambiguation page. Besides I don't read anything where "Docu requests restoration"? Where did you read that? -- User:Docu 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Just ignore him tarc. He just plays games/refuses to answer direct questions/tries to do end arounds on consensus/etc... He's one of those legacy admins.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably for the best, but it is odd how can one write "Thus, for GFDL compliance, the article can't be deleted. It should either be redirected or kept" yesterday, and then deny that he asked for the article to be restored today. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This isn't necessary here, perhaps there is a better place for discussion. Also it's not fair to point fingers at King of Hearts, period. Drawn Some (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Tarc here except that King of Hearts was acting in good faith (not that I agree with creating an inappropriate disambig page). Ever since Docu's decision to keep was clearly overturned, he has been pushing the restoration of this article so that his original decision doesn't look bad, hence he can do these markings, [61] and [62]. this is an attempt by Docu to cover his actions, what is also of concern is that this not an ordinary editor but an admin doing this. LibStar (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I do not hold KoH's actions in any sort of bad light or faith either. :) I don't agree with the restoration move obviously, but it was done with the best of intentions at addressing the possibility of a copyright/licensing issue. Tarc (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this is not really a disambiguation page, and it is of zero value. My major concern is that since it's not a tru DAB page that it can easily become a content fork again, as it was before it was deleted, a deletion that was rather overwhelmingly supported at an AfD that was badly closed and at the DrV of that AfD.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - (I only commented before, above) - There are better ways to adhere to GFDL, if it was even necessary here at all, without restoring the page into an implausible and inappropriate use of a disambig page. Consensus was clear to delete the page. Also note, I have (twice) removed a "rescue" tag from the page. The Rescue squad lays out 4 cases where the tag is to be used, and I do not see in any way how that is applicable to a disambig page. There is no question here about restoring/rescuing the original article form, that ship already sailed at DRV. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No realiable secondary source adresses these relations in any depth. Hipocrite (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not an appropriate disambiguation page. Delete per the prior AFD and DRV. Not a notable subject. No GFDL problem. Edison (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - No need for this page's existence. Basically clutterware and counterpoint to community consensus, which by the way stated both in AFD and DRV to delete. We wouldn't give any other deleted article this much special treatment.--WaltCip (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have restored the page to it pre-disambig status and have continued to improve it. Let's not fight over a strawman. After all, who really cares about the existence of a disambig page. Please consider this to be a recreation of the page in an attempt to create a page worth reading, rather than overrule the previous verdict to delete.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite frankly, that is bullshit, and I am appaled at your blatant end-around of a community decision. The article was deleted according to broad consensus, and was specifically recreated for the sole reason that it was believed to be necessary to satisfy GFDL concerns. Revert yourself, please. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bullshit?!? Yeah I might use that word. Since you've compelled an admin to revert my helpful edits,[63] without asking me to on my talk page, or getting your hands dirty yourself. I'm sorry I wasn't privy to your observation that this page, could only, and should only ever survive as a disambig page indefinitely, no matter how much new info was brought to light. So there's nothing left to say. This article can't be improved in this condition. I see no point to try to defend it in this state. I urge King of Hearts to get a second Admin's opinion. But as far as being an "involved editor" is concerned, Tarc, I can at least say that I'm making an attempt to improve the quality of this project. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and by the way Tarc, your repeated removals of my Rescue tag here and here were really beyond the pale. Seriously, it's practically vandalism. This page was improved past Luxembourg–Russia relations and you still wanted it gone. Do you have an ax to grind or something?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Axes? No, as I have never been involved in any of this until a few days ago, and that only came from seeing the DRV discussion. I do have a beef with people who misuse rescue tags to save their favored articles when it clearly isn't applicable, though. It was not vandalism to revert your misuse. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Cdogsimmons, you have to realise what you are pushing is for a restoration of an article that was incorrectly closed in the initial AfD, then a very strong consensus in the deletion review, you are essentially making a mockery of these 2 processes, because trying to push the existence of the original article means that the whole AfD and DRV process is a waste of time. Why do we bother having AfDs if articles can be restored like this? Please respect Wikipedia processes. LibStar (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for any misunderstanding, but I was trying to allow for the article to be evaluated as a disambiguation page. We've already considered the article as an article at the last AfD, and it was deleted, so that is not necessary at this AfD. I'm not such a staunch advocate of my creation of the disambiguation actually; see my comments below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you meant well, but the inevitable result of your action (to recreate an article page, which is what you did, this is not a Dab page) was that some people would try to resurrect the elaborate piece of crap article that had a rather overwhelming consensus to delete despite the rather incompetent interventions of user:Docu. There were no GFDL concerns whatsoever (that was just a smokescreen thrown up by Docu) and yet here we are.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As the admin who closed the DRV, I've had a pretty difficult time sorting this out. After deliberating over this for some time, I feel that the content at Estonia–Luxembourg relations does not fall under Copyright#Scope, which states that "Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed." The "Malta" portion of Foreign relations of Estonia seems to be a boilerplate non-notable bilateral summary. While those statements are indeed copyrightable, they've been used in other (notable) articles such as India–Malta relations. Estonia–Luxembourg was created on November 9, 2008; the most recent version of India–Malta before that date was October 18, 2008, so the boilerplate has been released under the GFDL, with history preserved. As public information, the mere insertion of facts into a template is not copyrightable. Thus delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also: I personally feel that using a (pseudo-)disambiguation is the lesser evil; most others would disagree, and prefer a redirect. However, now I'm thinking, perhaps this whole thing is moot. If the relations between two countries are notable, so be it. If the relations between them aren't notable, then maybe it's not even worth mentioning anything in their corresponding foreign relations articles besides uncopyrightable material. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • By the way, in creating the disambiguation, I knew it was not a permanent solution; I was just trying to err on the side of caution. Docu made a good point, I must say; this issue kept me occupied for the last few days. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments King of Hearts, I do believe you were acting in good faith, and certainly had no intention to restore the original article as others have been pushing. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Two users? Who are they? -- User:Docu
    If you click on "history", you can see: Richard Arthur Nornton (1958- ) and Cdogsimmons. Drawn Some (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stifle, you think my trying to improve a page to the point it can be kept should result in me being blocked from editing? There was no set policy or consensus that the page should not be improved from the disambig state (and still none exists to my understanding, merely the weight of an Admin's overturn). We obviously have serious differences in the way we think wikipedia should be run. If you think I should be blocked for my actions, I advise you to take it up with an administrator and then let me have the benefit of procedural due process, rather than excusing yourself for being "involved".--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there was clear policy that the page should not be improved from the disambig state; it was only restored to that state for copyright concerns. The content was removed, by consensus, and it was improper for you to restore it. All water under the bridge now really, so please, move on. Tarc (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I can understand a vote to delete based on copyright concerns if they were valid. However, as King of Hearts explains above, copyright is not applicable here. I disagree that the page must be kept in such a minimized state. I personally don't think that the page serves well as a a disambig at all. I would be all in favor of deleting it so that the page could be restored based on its own merit. I added several facts which were then removed when the page was reverted to a disambig that could have allowed the page to pass a deletion review (which I understand has happened before but which I disagree with since the page has merit, the problem being, no one here was as willing to improve the article as they were to delete it. Call me an optimist, I think I can improve the page to where it can pass deletion review if I'm actually allowed to edit it). Instead, people here are left clinging to the old decision for deletion and stuck with a disambig page that makes no sense. It doesn't have to be like this, but since it appears people here are only willing to consider the page as a disambig (which is not required anywhere, Tarc, only implied by the fact that it was deleted before and restored by an Admin as a disambig) which is stupid in my opinion, but whatever, I think the disambig should be conditionally deleted so good faith editing can take place on a recreated version of this page which will be worth reading (aka notable). That vote for delete of course is conditional on the page being restored to an editable state. I do this for practicality's sake, not because it makes sense, (maybe in part because User:Stifle is trying to get myself and others who want to improve this page blocked if you look above) and not because there is any solid decision or consensus that requires this page to remain a disambig. People have just convinced themselves that there is.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're being disingenuous. I've requested protection through the end of this AFD to stop attempts at circumventing consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Disingenous" –adjective, lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere. Your accusation is misplaced Stifle. My main concern is the improvement of this article, as I explained here, and on your talk page. Your opinion that I am being disingenuous is wrong. Can't say it any plainer than that.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have modified my opinion (again) back to keep per the policy at Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete obviously - nothing here. And why is this even necessary given the DRV. Eusebeus (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article looks fine. I reverted it, after someone wiped out 90% of it. If you want to delete something, you discuss it here, and wait to see how it closes. And those who said "delete" please make certain you are seeing the article at its fullest, not the version where most of it was erased. There seems to be a notable relationship between the two nations, mostly in trade. Dream Focus 07:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may wish to note that the content was deleted at the last AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep version as restored by Dream Focus. Heard the rattle of sabers and clatter of small arms fire. Came to look in. Not involved in any prior attempts to either flush this article down the toilet or raise it unto the skies. Took a look at the earlier stub article. Saw its organization, its sourcing, it encyclopedic format. Looks very worthy of Wikipedia in informing readers interested in the subject of the relationship between Estonia and Luxembourg. Not like you're looking at some sort of tenuous relationship. With respects to all parties... I hope it not to out of line to point out that Wikipedia is not perfect nor does it demand or expect to be. Wikipedia encourages the protection of information so that they do not get lost among other articles or become usless to readers. That small problems should be handled without being made into large problems. It encourages boldness, yes, but for little edits. The big stuff needs discussion... not warring over content until one side or the other gives up out of frustration. AfD is not a vote. 200 arguments saying the same thing in 200 different ways can be countered by one cogent argument that uses policy and guideline to propely refute the 200... either for delete or for keep. It is the value of the arguments that closer considers, not the volume. These pages are not here for the editors... its not about us. Wikipedia is for the readers... whether a kid in Liverpool or a CEO in Boise... we're here for them. And so.. with my keep opinion made and my comment said... I will put on my flack-jacket and leave the battlefield. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    have you seen this Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_20? LibStar (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This version seems excellent and even the stubby tee has some value. Deletion is not an appropriate way of improving this material. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      That version is not on the table as a possibility, as it was deleted by clear consensus at a DRV discussion. A DRV that was necessary because an involved admin wrongly closed the first AfD as a keep. Tarc (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Canvassing tag goes up, the bots are going to do what the bots are going to do, never mind consensus already being established and this being a malformed dab page that, in theory, shouldn't be allowed to be "improved." (that is, it isn't an article).Bali ultimate (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Rescue Squadron do not vote Keep automatically. Just yesterday I said Delete to an article that had been tagged. This article should be kept. The closing administrator said the Keep arguement was far more valid, than any of the deletes, and reading it over, I agree. It should've been kept. A lot of you went over to the deletion review and had it overturned, it then restored, and here we are again, at the AFD. If an article is to be deleted, it should be done in the AFD, where people will notice it. Consider this a do over. And please stop assuming bad faith on the part of other editors. No one here is a bot. Dream Focus 14:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to everyone does anyone realise we would never been having this discussion if the original AfD has been closed correctly as delete, an outcome vindicated in deletion review. If it had actually been deleted in the first instance, the only recourse to keeping it would have been a deletion review to overturn and keep. I doubt that would have happened. Because of all this, I think in total many hours of good Wikipedia users time has been soaked up that could have gone to better use. LibStar (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually agree. It would have been far better as a matter of policy to have deleted this article cleanly so that if it were to be recreated, we wouldn't be stuck in a situation where people are only willing to consider the article as a disambig page. The overall ability of wikipedia users to improve articles should be sacrosanct. Freezing the article in a disambig state makes improvement impossible and is against the policy decision laid out in WP:Ignore that wikipedia should be open to improvement. I think the new information added (that Estonia and Luxembourg have a fairly significant investment relationship since Luxembourg is a major banking power, all the more relevant today based on the turmoil in the banking sector) should merit recreation of a substantive article which should be discussed honestly. This disambig nonsense has wasted everyone's time.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is not a disambig page, it's like a strange and arbitary introduction. Not required. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - absurd abuse of the disambiguation function. In extremis, we could redirect to one or the other (flip a coin), but given earlier consensus to delete (reiterated at DRV), this is patently an attempt to circumvent that consensus. Why, I don't know. Nor does it concern us. We have Foreign relations of Estonia and Foreign relations of Luxembourg; those should be enough to serve the interested reader (not that such readers exist, but never mind that). The need, desirability or even accord with policy of this page has not and cannot be demonstrated. - Biruitorul Talk 21:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing Administrator please note The article is frozen in its useless Disambiguation page state, which no one is arguing to keep. Those who say Keep, want the original article back(it was determined Keep in the first AFD, do to the arguments of the Keeps, not the votes of the deletes). Those who keep coming here and saying delete now, as the two above, only comment on the Disambiguation page. If there was a problem with the first AFD, then relist it, and do it over again, with the proper article page there, not these Disambiguation page that is there now. Dream Focus 11:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Dream Focus, you are misinterpreting this, it was incorrectly closed as keep in the original AfD, have you bothered to check the deletion review which clearly shows the keep decision as wrong, this is why the article is frozen to stop people trying to disregard the deletion review and keep everything, it seems you want every single bilateral article kept regardless of process. LibStar (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion review is basically whoever is around at the time who decides to comment, it apparently a vote, unlike the AFD which is based on the content of the arguments. And I don't want every single bilateral article kept, only those with content as this one has/had. Dream Focus 12:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    so we should disregard a deletion review (which uses consensus as well and a very strong consensus developed including many people that I have never seen at bilateral AfDs) and all delete AfDs just in case there are not enough people around to comment on? that's ridiculous. this whole Estonia-Luxembourg case is making a mockery of the established procedures WP:AFD, WP:DRV and WP:DAB, we wouldn't even be here if correct procedure was followed and it was closed as delete, do you intend now to contest deleted bilateral articles in deletion reviews? LibStar (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The AFD closed properly as KEEP based on argument, not votes. You didn't like it, so you took it to the DRV, and had enough deletionists(who seem to vote delete 99% of the time or more) there to have it overturned. You have not made any valid reason why the original article should be deleted. The article should be restored and kept. Dream Focus 12:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    closed properly as keep? you have to be kidding me, I refuted the only 1 keep vote in that. and now you totally disrespect the outcome of deletion review. many admins commented in the deletion review that Docu's judgement was poor. was the deletion review wrong? I don't think so. I have made several reasons why the original article should be deleted, the main one being a significant lack of third party coverage of actual bilateral relations. seems like you only want to keep all bilateral articles...please request deletion review of the 150 odd deleted ones in the past 2 months. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    you're also effectively saying that deletion review outcomes should be ignored (especially when someone likes an article) and in effect it's a useless procedure of Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The closing administrator believed the argument of the keep, the "Presidential visits, growing trade and cultural contacts, four bilateral agreements", made it notable. It was closed just fine. You didn't like the outcome, so you ganged up at the one place where its about votes not valid reason for arguments, and overturned that. Ignoring the KEEP made on valid arguments, and respecting the deletion review based on vote stacking, makes no sense at all. And I do not vote Keep on all bilaterial articles, only those with content which clearly make them notable. Dream Focus 23:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    the above is purely your opinion and might I add disrespectful of the deletion review process. to accuse me of ganging up is not assuming good faith. It may have had "Presidential visits, growing trade and cultural contacts, four bilateral agreements" but it lacked significant third party coverage to meet WP:N, something you fail to acknowledge. I refuted the only keep vote as it did not prove there is significant coverage of bilateral relations, almost all the coverage was multilateral, and a search was conducted in three languages: Estonian, French and English but none found significant coverage of bilateral relations. perhaps you could do a search in German to disprove me? LibStar (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I too support reinstating the article. There certainly seemed to be canvassing by those opposed to the article to overturn at the DRV which objectively would be a no consensus not a delete. This, unfortunately, is just the latest chapter in the bilateral-relations articles saga which I was hoping there was an uneasy truce to holding off further clogging the AfD systems while a team of editors tried to wor out some constructive policies. These actions woud seem to fan the flames of polarizing rather than building consensus. We need long-term solutions not short-term battles. We all have better things to do. -- Banjeboi 22:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There seems to be little to say about relations between these two countries, and what little there is can be found in the "Foreign relations of ..." tables for each country. As it stands, as a sort of index page pointing to these two real articles, this article may possibly occasionally be of use. It avoids the (trivial) bias that could be implied by redirecting the title to one or the other "Foreign relations of ..." articles. It does no harm. But if it were deleted, there would be no great loss. So, keep or delete, I don't care. Why so much passion and energy arguing about it? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding to the above, a decision to delete does not mean that the subject does not and never will deserve an article in Wikipedia. It is just a decision that the article as it stands does not meet the criteria for retention. Any editor can recreate an article with this name, as long as they make a solid, informative article with good sources that show notability. A decision to delete would raise the bar a bit - a new article with this name would get fairly intense scrutiny - but if there is enough to be said on the subject, the new article would survive. Again, I don't see what the fuss is about. Let's quit arguing about borderline cases and spend our energy on constructive improvements to the tables in the "Foreign relations of ..." articles. See User:Aymatth2/Relations for my personal views on what could usefully be done. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no significant third-party coverage with which to make an article. Shouldn't be a disambiguation page since the consensus was Delele both in the original AfD and in the Review. The situation with this Admin appears to be exactly as Libstar and Tarc have stated. This is just the case of a longtime admin trying to cover up a bad call, and it really looks bad. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Per all the excellent arguments raised at the previous AfD and DRV, an article on Estonia-Luxembourg Relations has no place on WP. Per the way every other case has been handled, a DAB is also inappropriate. Yilloslime TC 03:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I don't think we'd normally have a dab for this sort of thing, seems more like an attempt to deceitfully recreate a deleted article, consider salting. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Looks like a joke to be frank. JFW | T@lk 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you check out the non-disambig version in the history. It's a little hard to improve when the article is protected.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:42, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Top 100 Global Universities[edit]

    Top 100 Global Universities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete - there do not appear to be any independent reliable sources that establish the notability of this list. There are sources that mention it in passing as part of a source about another topic and there is the occasional press release-style announcement from one of the universities on the list, but nothing that offers significant coverage of the topic "Top 100 Global Universities". PROD removed with the usual unsubstantiated claim of notability. Otto4711 (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete It's a list of the Newsweek's top 100 global universities. Aside from being a borderline copyright issue (difficult to say if the list itself is protected), the article has no additional content. Wikipedia is not here to reproduce magazine content. Shadowjams (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with the other two main lists--much more useful and informative that way, and then it will not give the appearance of copyvio--which it is not, for its a very fbried summary--theeir discussion and justification of it, not this list, is tthe actual text, this is just a summary.DGG (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which lists? And does that mean pasting the entire list into that article (because that's all that's there now)? I don't believe that's encyclopedic material, not to mention potential copyright issues. Shadowjams (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    the shanghai and the Times Education Supplement--sorry--its in the lede paragraph of the article, so I thought it would be clear. DGG (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (with qualifiers): If it is allowed by fair use and copyright standards, I'd say this is useful information and should remain. This Newsweek standing is often mentioned in articles (both on Wikipedia and in the media at large) about various universities (see the list of linking articles). I think if a reader is going through the Purdue article, for example, they might very well be interested in how it compares with other schools on the list and this article makes that possible. I am not particularly concerned that it is just replicating magazine material, since it is unclear how long the msnbc page is going to remain (it looks like an archive page that could disappear at any time) and it's not a page that's particularly forthcoming in a google search. However, while I think the information in the article is useful and notable enough, whether it falls under the category of plagiarism is not as clear to me as it seems to be to Shadowjams. I think if it were as simple as he says, other, more famous, surveys would also be replicated on Wikipedia (THES and Shanghai Jiaotong being the most obvious). To me this seems more of a fair use question than a notability question. TastyCakes (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. First, this is inherently subjective, therefore not encyclopedic. (I challenge you to verify this list from multiple sources. There's only one: Newsweek. Other lists of best universities do not put them in the same order). I'm guessing it's also biased towards English language universities although there do seem to be some non-Anglo entries. Lastly, and probably least relevant, how good a university is depends on what you're studying. (If you're in Philosophy for example, Harvard is not number 1). Overall ranking means very little; usually these lists are measures of prestige more than measures of quality. Hairhorn (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: While it's of course true that ranking universities is a very subjective process, this is a list of schools as ranked by Newsweek in 2006. Therefore the material is not subjective in the way Wikipedia is concerned about (ie it is not editor generated opinion) but rather a faithful representation of a verifiable list (created by what is incidentally and reliable source, Newsweek). TastyCakes (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I understand that this is "a list of schools as ranked by Newsweek in 2006". But then I have to pull out arguments already made above, for example that this simply reposts the list and adds no real content to it. It's just wikipedia-as-web-depository. Hairhorn (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, but those are objectively verifiable lists, as well as the bread and butter of paper encyclopedias. Hairhorn (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, copyvio, Newsweek's intellectual property. Surveys such as this, based upon subjective criteria, are not fair use-eligible. You could write an article about the list but you can't have the list here. The page it links to specifically says © 2009 Newsweek, Inc.. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support deletion on the article, and I believe the copyright is problematic, but the argument for keeping it is not that it would be a fair use (taking a whole work is rarely a fair use, although not always) but that a bare list is not itself protected. Shadowjams (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If you're going to write an article about the list, then the article needs to be notable as demonstrated by third party sources. There's no indication here that the list is notable, just because Newsweek published it, just as individual news stories aren't notable, despite being published by the New York Times, or columns published by Paul Krugman aren't [usually] themselves notable. So it would need some sources in addition to what it has now that indicate the list has some notability. Shadowjams (talk) 21:22, 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 - nominator withdrew and all other comments for keep. (Disclosure Note: non-admin closure by editor who voted keep.)

    John wellington ennis[edit]

    John wellington ennis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    All three sources are trivial mentions; no notability established. American Eagle (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *Note: Name changed to proper case    7   talk | Δ |   04:09, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yaft[edit]

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

    Article was prodded, with 2 supporting prods. Has been deprodded and while modified, still unremarkable and the sources cited don't appear to be WP:RS. Not just a neologism, a neologistic acronym. Shadowjams (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete – No notability shown: we aren't a dictionary, but especially not a miscellaneous word database. American Eagle (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell you what is though... treelo radda 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: it's just a collection of unremarkable, unverified facts, and there is no evidence given that these acronyms are used by large enough sections of society to make them in any way notable. -- roleplayer 08:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Unverified neologism. I declined speedy but there really is nothing encyclopedic here. Pedro :  Chat  11:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not even suitable for Wiktionary. treelo radda 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Neologism, no reliable sources. I was unable to find any sources, except for various products using the name, and The Free Dictionary, which I believe copies its information from Wikimedia pages and the like. Cnilep (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete (but if it were going to be kept, it would have to be at YAFT anyway). +Angr 17:09, 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) 08:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Integrated commercial performance improvement[edit]

    Integrated commercial performance improvement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable proprietary (apparently) commercial service. Article seeks to promote the service, and cites no sources other than those of the company web site. No relevant Google hits aside from the company site. Borderline spam. (Declined speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: coatrack of an advertisement. Alexius08 (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. No hits on Google Web, Books, Scholar, or News. Spam disguised as article.--Dmol (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, coatrack spam. Before I looked, I intuitively knew I'd find prose worthy of derision: All these elements can enhance or hamper the commercial agility and impact of a company and should thus be included in programs to improve commercial performance. The CPI approach is based on a multiviewpoint analysis of the commercial efficiëncy and commercial effectiveness of a company taking into account internal, external, management and staff perspectives. The confrontation of these viewpoints reveals areas for potential improvement (enablers and barriers in the CPI terminology). The CPI model uses elements from strategic positioning, corporate finance, lean management, six-sigma, organizational development, sales, marketing and communication to screen and improve commercial approaches. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Yeah, I took a look at that, but unfortunately I only speak English. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:21, 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 speedy deleted by KillerChihuahua, CSD G3: Blatant hoax. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Adinians[edit]

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

    A 'tribe' of dubious veracity. No sources.

    The statement "They are known for their advances in the sciences of the Uren Golnishke (see related page). All who did not worship their Lordess, Adinia, were forced to endure it", seems particularly suspect. Icewedge (talk) 02:56, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jana Stanfield[edit]

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

    Non-notable musician. She has a non-trivial biography in Allmusic, but the only other hits I found were Amazon and press releases. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:46, 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 redirect to Palo Alto Unified School District#Elementary schools. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ohlone School[edit]

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

    I thought I'd bring this one up, as last time I checked, elementary schools without any particular national recognition do not meet the notability guideline. I must admit I have a conflict of interest in the issue. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 02:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What's your COI? tedder (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One of attending the school in question I'd imagine. treelo radda 16:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, attending the district, anyhow. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 13:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - schools are not speediable since they don't meet the A7 criteria. Common outcomes are merge/redirect not delete since this is a likely search term. TerriersFan (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, and I know that-I should have said "speedy merge". My point is that it should be a non-controversial merge since it isn't a Blue Ribbon school. tedder (talk) 17:31, 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 delete. Tone 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Empire of New Europe[edit]

    Empire of New Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not sure how to even start with this one so I will just say. Total of 7 Google hits. Ridernyc (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete per WP:MADEUP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, WP:MADEUP. Also, what will the little darlings come up with next? Drawn Some (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. "Für Volk, Für Kaiser (!), Für Gott". Oh please, delete. Hairhorn (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. as WP:MADEUP, although it seems they did not just make it up for Wikipedia, but are trying to use Wikipedia to give it an air of legitimacy.--Susan118 (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • speedy completely ridiculous Beach drifter (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete - Nothing says Wp:MADEUP than "The vision for this country was first promulgated on January 20, 2009, by a group of online friends and their Facebook group.". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete So a handful of racists got together on Facebook to talk about how great it would be if they had their own all-white nation. If they'll just relocate to one, they can have an article. Mandsford (talk) 13:05, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    G-Forces Web Management[edit]

    G-Forces Web Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Page edited to include 3rd party reference to establish notability. TonusHillius (Talk) 15:53, 01 June 2009

    Survived speedy deletion - barely - but still unsuitable for inclusion per WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:53, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Emirati–Kosovan relations[edit]

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

    information could easily be contained here Foreign_relations_of_Kosovo#Middle_East. not strongly opposed to redirect but would prefer delete as unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per precedent for almost all X-Y relations articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The information is already included at the nominator's suggested location, no need to worry about that. At present there seems to be a lack of in-depth coverage of relations between UAE and Kosovo, not nearly enough to establish notability, to say the least. The article can alway be undeleted as their intercourse becomes more complex and noteworthy. Drawn Some (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Relations between these two countries are notable. Kosovo announced that it will open an embassy in the UAE in 2009. Also, the UAE is a wealthy country and has already started to contribute to Kosovo. --Turkish Flame ☎ 02:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    isn't your last sentence original research? LibStar (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [65][66]--Turkish Flame ☎ 02:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    your first article above, blogs are unreliable sources for Wikipedia as per WP:SPS. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That article was first published in The National on Sunday 26 Oct 2008. --Turkish Flame ☎ 03:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It can't be verified as per WP:V, who knows if the blog author altered it? LibStar (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Turkish has been the only "keep" !voter in almost all of these "X-y relations" discussions. That should tell you something. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It would not only be WP:OR but WP:CRYSTAL. Drawn Some (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "It can't be verified as per WP:V, who knows if the blog author altered it?" Well, let's use the original version, then, on the newspaper's own website www.thenational.ae – it also mentions that the UAE donated $25.7million to build a humanitarian airport in Kosovo. OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per the new way of handling these bilateral relations pages. JJL (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    COmment see Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. JJL (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The page appears to pass muster under the standards set at Wikipedia:WikiProject_International_relations#Bilateral_relations (a significant involvement in a war and humanitarian assistance, although that page clearly says those are merely guidelines, not set in stone). The other page you refer to is an ongoing discussion that has not reached a concrete policy. Perhaps more clarification is in order.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment better handled at e.g. Foreign_relations_of_Kosovo#Arab_states. JJL (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There is nothing notable in these relations. Searching United Arab Emirates for "Kosovo", and Kosovo for "Emirates" shows nothing. Foreign relations of Kosovo mentions only that the UAE is one of three Arab countries to have recognized the independence of Kosovo, and Foreign relations of the United Arab Emirates mentions nothing about Kosovo. Which countries recognize Kosovo is important, and it is correctly handled in Foreign relations of Kosovo. There is no secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails Bilateral relations. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep The relations between two sovereign nation states or lack thereof is inherently notable and deserving of its own page. Some status of a relationship has been sourced so appeals to WP:V for a delete are illogical. Obviously, with only the recent international recognition of Kosovo as a nation state, such relations are in their infancy. I advocate keeping and expanding this article as relations develop. Historical relations might also be explored on this page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The relations between two sovereign nation states or lack thereof is inherently notable and deserving of its own page then why about 150 of these bilateral articles been deleted? LibStar (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak about other pages that have been deleted without my seeing them. I will say that the deletion of such pages would seem to me to be a misguided effort on the part of the editors patrolling this page. As far as this specific page is concerned, it seems clear to me that both countries are in the process of attempting to develop relations. Your original reason for deleting this page was that it could be contained at Foreign relations of Kosovo. That page is already quite long. You seemed to think Ethiopia-Qatar relations was worth saving. If we had spent as much energy improving the article instead of trying to delete it by now, I quite confident it would a worth-while read.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't apply here. LibStar (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've added material to this page that I think should address all concerns raised. I urge all those who voiced a call for deletion of this article, which I personally found to have profound importance, to re-evaluate their opinions.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the sourced information about diplomatic/military relations. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - the references found and added by User:Cdogsimmons are sufficient to establish notability per WP:N - great work (it's very unusual for Middle Eastern countries to deploy peace keeping forces to Europe by the way). Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The peace keeping forces are notable because of what it says about the UAE's relations with Europe. The UAE is not attempting to establish a relationship with Kosovo! Indeed, we can read "Following Iraq's 1990 invasion and attempted annexation of Kuwait, the UAE has sought to rely on the GCC, the United States, and other Western allies for its security." The UAE troops in Kosovo have nothing to do with Kosovo. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As Kosovo is one of the very few Muslim-majority countries in Europe, it seems likely that the UAE may have had more altruistic motives than that. Moreover, the deployment generated enough coverage to meet WP:N, which is what's in question here. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Kosovan relationships, in my opinion, are notable due to its status Computerjoe's talk 09:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep pace Computerjoe - when it comes to a new country, external recognition and relations are crucial and revealing--Kashana (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — Kashana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Delete Most of the article has nothing to do with relations between the countries as Kosovo didn't formally exist at the time. This information belongs in historical articles on the period. There have hardly been significant relations since. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. The groundwork laid as governments are taking place is clearly relevant to national bilateral relations between recognized governments after those countries become recognized by the international community. Just look at France – United States relations. The UAE's significant steps to become involved in a present day relationship with Kosovo do belong on a page detailing that relationship.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - to the extent the pre-2008 stuff is relevant, it can be covered at Kosovo Force and related articles; to pretend it has to do with the relations of two sovereign states (one of which under a third of UN members even recognise) is misguided. - Biruitorul Talk 19:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree. Delete Eusebeus (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. See my comment above regarding France – United States relations.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not a notable topic. Deletion avoids the problem of which of the two countries to redirect to. An unlikely search term, so not a good disambiguation page. Better to have 208 articles about "Foreign relations of.." than 20,000 xy bilateral articles. Edison (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really think that all U.S. foreign relations can be fit into one page? Clearly not. You probably think that U.S. foreign relations are notable enough to merit multiple pages. I submit that it would therefore be far better as a policy matter to have 20,000 articles detailing bilateral relations than excluding some on the basis of subjective impression regarding the "notability" of a country's relations. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By that reasoning, all poets would have an article on Wikipedia, as would all painters and plumbers. That's why WP:N recommends that a topic should be notable. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cdogsimmons, you're using an WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. LibStar (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I put it in those terms because Edison did. I personally think that in a circumstance where nations have no clearly documented relations whatsoever, such a situation is undeserving of a page (although it would be interesting to understand why those countries have no relations). But this page does not fit into that situation. Let me try to explain why:
    1. The UAE extended military and humanitarian aid to the area and people that would become the state of Kosovo. According to this article those troops are still there. This was the UAE's first military mission outside of the Middle East and it was the only Muslim state to participate in the Kosovo Force.
    2. That military aid, in this case consisting of over a fifteen hundred peacekeepers and special operations forces, 6 Apache helicopters, 15 tanks and 50 armored fighting vehicles, (hardly "trivial" as Biruitorol suggests below) is sufficient to support the creation of an article detailing bilateral relations under the policy developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_International_relations#Bilateral_relations, in that such military involvement denotes that the two country's have been involved in a war together, that they are in or have been in an alliance, or that they have been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict. (The page itself says these factors need only be roughly met to create notability, and that these guidelines are not set in stone)
    3. The humanitarian aid extended by the UAE which has been substantial is also an indication of an alliance.The article above indicates that the aid given to Kosovo by the UAE’s Red Crescent Authority alone cost Dh125 million between 1998 and 2008.
    4. The UAE has recognized Kosovo's declaration of independence and thus, Kosovo should be recognized as having the status of a nation state by wikipedia for the purposes of this article.
    5. Kosovo is in the process of opening embassies around the world and has indicated that it will open an embassy in the UAE.
    Therefore, in my opinion, a relationship clearly exists between these two countries sufficient to merit documentation by wikipedia in its own article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep When one nation sends troops and tries to help another country, then that relationship between them is clearly notable. Dream Focus 10:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, like we can't cover that bit at UNMIK or someplace like that. Notice that even UNMIK says nary a word about the provenance of the peacekeepers under its aegis. Kind of hints this sort of information might be trivial at best, no? - Biruitorul Talk 16:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Biruitorul, sending over 1,000 peacekeepers and special operations soldiers into a foreign country is not "trivial at best". Also encapsulating all relations between Kosovo and Emirati cannot and should not be done at an article on UNMIK. You might as well try to encapsulate the relationship between the United States and Russia at the article on the UN.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We usually look for a reliable source to indicate whether something is notable, rather than decide what is obvious ourselves. Johnuniq (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are suppose to use common sense and think for yourself, not rely entirely on the suggestions in the notability guidelines. Those are just suggestions to help you make a decision, not policy. Dream Focus 16:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment in fact, WP:V is indeed a policy, and WP:N and WP:RS are not mere 'suggestions'. I don't see why this case should be an exception to the rules, which is so like all the others that have been discussed in detail at the previously-mentioned pages in order to develop consensus on how to handle them. To the contrary, following consensus seems like a good idea for consistent treatment of these types of articles. Where is the source asserting that this particular relationship--beyond individual actions involving the two countries--is notable? JJL (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it's telling that even UNMIK says nothing about who makes it up, and that this fact only becomes a concern when we try to "rescue" stuff better consigned to the dustbin. After all, has anyone treated the subject of "Emirati–Kosovan relations"? If not, you're just breaching WP:SYNTH in claiming the UNMIK presence as evidence of such relations. And please, let's not compare the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, the subject of many a published volume, with Emirati police in UNMIK, whom no one has troubled to cite as having a bearing on "Emirati–Kosovan relations". - Biruitorul Talk 21:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete yes, when a topic isn't covered, in this case a bilateral relationship in any reliable sources, all of the "save" efforts hinge on strained synthesis, mentions in primary sources of tiny bilateral trade flows, etc... In the end there are good reasons why reliable sources that discuss a topic are a neccessary (but not sufficient) condition for inclusion. The failure to find sources in this case should make this a clear delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Nothing notable about these bilateral relations is discussed in reliable secondary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete WP:N is the only criteria by which to judge whether a topic gets a stand alone article and this topic doesn't meet those criteria. I see a few sourced statements on the history of Kosovo, but no evidence of coverage of Emirati–Kosovan bilateral relations in reliable, independent sources. !Keep arguments are not grounded in policy.Yilloslime TC 03:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A strong keep. I'm not understanding this notion of deleting important inter-state relations as if we don't have room for them. --alchaemia (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just another note of more canvassing by Turkish Flame here's Alchaemia [67] and then there's [68] [69] and [70].Bali ultimate (talk) 15:27, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Balham Alligators[edit]

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

    No non-trivial coverage found in third party sources, fails WP:MUSIC. Also delete Category:The Balham Alligators albums, which contains several redirects to the band's article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Geraint Watkins was not deleted. It was a redirect page Geraint Watkins (musician) that was deleted. Adds more to The Balham Alligators than I'd seen earlier. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated The Balham Alligators. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:19, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Ossai[edit]

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

    Non-notable footballer fails notability guidelines per WP:ATHLETE in having not played professionally, not played senior international football or achieved anything significant in football ClubOranjeT 01:17, 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 redirect to Mikoyan Project 1.44. Redirected per discussion with original editor, deletion nomination withdrawn by nominator Acroterion (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    MiG 42 Foxglove[edit]

    MiG 42 Foxglove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    There is no "MiG 42 Foxglove." The article references a speculative website dating to 1997, not a reliable source. The aircraft in question is probably what became the Mikoyan Project 1.44. At best, it's a redirect. Contested PROD. Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Conceivably so. Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    However, based on my conversations with the editor who created it, I believe he's sincerely convinced it's a real airplane. Acroterion (talk)
    • Delete - per nom. If it is from a game, there's no need for a whole article on a fictional aircraft from a minor game. - BillCJ (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That has nothing to do with my point. - BillCJ (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC) THat can be the result of an AFD to Delete an article. To this point, there is not really much worth keeping in the existing article that one well-wirrten sentece would not cover, and it could be written entirely without consulting the article's poorly-written text, thus the article does not need to be kept in history for GNFU purposes. - BillCJ (talk) 07:08, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Zarzon[edit]

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

    Prod contested by IP. Article is unreferenced, and makes no claim/offers no evidence of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=32540
    http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?letter=Z&game_id=10521 — Rankiri (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. —Ost (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with the list articles as noted above. Tangentially notable, but not enough for its own article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per sources by Rankiri. This is trying to go into dangerous territory where we can be given the green light to delete articles of almost every game produced before 1990 due to lack of online sources and unknown print sources. Ten Pound Hammer was accurate in describing how we handle the notability of games on this site for at least several years, despite the policy that the admin waved in our faces. I don't like the precedent this is trying to set. Vodello (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the Killer List of Videogames and Allgame reviews (now added to the article). There is probably more coverage in contemporary game press that is not online. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:08, 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 redirect to Technos Japan#List of games by platforms. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Battle Lane Vol. 5[edit]

    Battle Lane Vol. 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No indication that this a notable video game. ÷seresin 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You exclusionists miss the point of wikipedia "the sum of all knowledge of mankind" but I don't want to argue, I've given up, so delete whatever you want, see if I care. Sandman30s (talk) 21:23, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Steven McLachlan[edit]

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

    Non-notable musician. Chart positions cannot be verified. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete No evidence that he's charted, no other sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:42, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ikechi Nnamani[edit]

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

    NN-high school athlete, per WP:ATHLETE. Prodego talk 18:40, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, no notable achievements yet. feydey (talk) 09:11, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Conor Molan[edit]

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

    An Irish footballer who does not meet the inclusion guideline of WP:ATHLETE for an article in the encyclopedia as he has not played in a fully professional league. Limerick F.C., the club that he played for up to Nov 2007, does not play in a fully professional league. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, hasn't competed in a fully professional league. No other claim to notability. Nanonic (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom; non-notable. GiantSnowman 01:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. I was under the impression that this was a professional league, but I appear to have misread the article for Limerick. ThemFromSpace 02:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above + the subject apparently wants it gone as well.--EchetusXe (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I would have to cast doubt on whether the editor claiming to be the subject is such, as an edit he made preserved the claim that he is currently at Limerick F.C., but his name is not mentioned at that club's site. Previous versions of the page link him with Melbourne F.C. and/or Whittlesea Zebras: might he have made A League appearances with either of them (I note that Whittlesea won the Victoria Premier League in 2004, and were runners up in 2007, and am guessing that these might have earned promotion). Kevin McE (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm struggling a bit to find evidence one way or another for the professional/amateur status of the FAI First Division, in which Limerick compete - can anyone give me a cite to confirm it's not a fully pro league? I don't doubt it, would just like a concrete confirmation.
    FWIW we also only have the objecting editor's say-so that he's the subject of the article; there's been no formal verification. Again, I've no reason to doubt the claim, I just want it made explicit that we're taking it on good faith. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an article on Setanta recently about how the Premier Division is not fully professional (it has since been removed, but you can see it on Google searches), so if the Premier isn't, I very much doubt the First is. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds plausible. I've got more circumstantial evidence: Wexford Youths F.C., who also play in the First, are described (as of June 08) as "completely amateur" (presumably in the literal sense, and this isn't just a journo being harsh!) in an article here; this Irish Times article asserts that "a growing number of First Division clubs struggle even to meet the criteria that would normally be applied to the term “semi-professional”." But I'm wary of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and I'd still like a flat-out confirmation. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:14, 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 Moved to "Yee Haw!" (its actual title per the album) then boldly redirected to album. This allows the Jake Owen song to be moved to the Yee Haw title. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yee Haw[edit]

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

    Non-notable song, didn't chart, no sources. Suggest deletion and moving Yee Haw (Jake Owen song), a more notable song, to this title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect as a plausible search term to "Yee Haw" (Jake Owen song), an article which has established notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs, since this one clearly hasn't.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:47, 22 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 00:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think it would be better to delete this song entirely and move the Jake Owen song to this title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the fact that that will leave "Yee Haw" (Jake Owen song) as a redirect, which is undesirable as you and I have both pointed out on many occasions during song AfD's?  Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 23:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects are cheap, and they can't really do any harm.FingersOnRoids 02:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest I'm easy either way. I was just keeping some consistency in my arguments. I reckon we can non-admin close this and do a bold redirect, what do you guys think???? Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 03:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd wait, there are only three editors involved right now, not really enough for a full consensus.FingersOnRoids 16:08, 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. WP:MUSICBIO #10, inclusion in compilation album. لennavecia 04:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Abis[edit]

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

    BLP with no sources (someone added a MySpace page and acted like it was a reliable source, removing the BLP unsourced tag). Based upon the unsourced info given in the article, individual's only shot at notability is having written a song recorded by someone else that was played in some capacity or another on some TV shows -- failing WP:MUSIC/WP:CREATIVE etc. quite dramatically. DreamGuy (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This singer/sonwriter passes WP:CREATIVE as evidenced by the several independent reviews that have now been added into the article. Additionally, his songwriting talents are notable as evidenced by his song "Summerbreeze" being covered by a notable artist, and for being featured on notable TV Shows and the Buffy soundtrack album, in addition to other compilation releases.Varbas (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you actually read WP:CREATIVE? Because even if we are to be generous and count those supposed sources (MySpace? You're kidding, right?) as reliable, proving that a song someone wrote was played on TV is nothing like demonstrating that he himself is notable in any way, shape or form. At best you might be making headway in trying to demonstrate that the song could be notable, but notability is not inherited and this person is not notable in the slightest. DreamGuy (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Varbas (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Making recommendations on how you can educate yourself to try be less ignorant of our policies is not a personal attack. DreamGuy (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please abide by your Wikipedia:Editing restrictions that have been placed on you by the Arbitration Committee. Varbas (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is giving you helpful information supposed to be a violation of anything? Oh, but that response reminds me of something else. DreamGuy (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing admin: Note that User:Varbas is currently under investigation as a possible sockpuppet of a banned user. Please weigh that when closing this AFD as appropriate (perhaps the investigation will have been concluded at that time). DreamGuy (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing admin: No, he isn't. He was, but the investigation has concluded with no sanctions against Varbas.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but you are mistaken. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Azviz, which is still open at this time and concerns Varbas and other accounts. DreamGuy (talk) 17:48, 30 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) 00:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are behind pay walls, but there appears to be at least brief mentions of him in the Western Gazette (Mar 9, 2006) and the Central Somerset Gazette (Dec 7, 2006). Other than that, the article "Student choice at the fringe", Bath Chronicle, 2007-05-25, p. 8, says in part "folk artist Mark Abis... plays weighty acoustic ballads and soft summery songs." Taken together, it's at least a slight indication of WP:GNG notability. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Sources are limited and questionable - Vartanza (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc.". Box ticked. Without a good place to redirect, we should keep this article. Fences and windows (talk) 00:13, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Godfather Academy Awards[edit]

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

    Crufty content fork; there's no rationale for splitting this info off from the main articles. Were there a main series article, I'd recommend merging there, but at the moment there isn't. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment So where is the Godfather Academy located? Sixteen awards for the three films isn't too shabby; I'm surprised that there's not an article about that looks at the three films together. ("The Godfather Saga" was a TV broadcast of the original and Part II). Mandsford (talk) 00:57, 22 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 00:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - all information included in the appropriate film articles; this is redundant. Otto4711 (talk) 04:05, 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. Non-notable film festival held at a community college. Fails WP:N—almost no coverage in third party sources. Ruslik_Zero 19:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Philosophy in the Dark Film Festival[edit]

    Philosophy in the Dark Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    An inherently non-notable event. Nothing to indicate notability per WP:N Wolfer68 (talk) 17:31, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Film screenings with accompanying lectures at a community college. No amount of touching up the article is going to make this sort of thing notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:28, 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. The confirmed fellowships and endowments meet the significant awards and honors criterion of WP:CREATIVE. Because the article received references late in the debate, later comments have been given more weight. Mgm|(talk) 09:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mary Gallagher[edit]

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

    Delete Originally prodded (by someone else) with explanation: Original research. Statement under References reads, "All information graciously provided through interviews with Ms. Gallagher. All information has been reviewed and updated as of (December 16, 2008). The link below was used to contact Ms. Gallagher and she submitted the information used in this page" Was deprodded by a serial deprodder with claim notable per WP:CREATIVE -- I see nothing in WP:CREATIVE that would apply to this person, as she fails every point. No independent reliable sources to establish notability for a full article, and the content of article was clearly generated to promote this person's work (until recently the content included: maryharden@hardencurtis.com. For information regarding performance rights, contact her representative, Mary Harden. (at end of line quoted above with the original research / text prepared by subject of article). Just looks like a page being used as a resume for someone who doesn't meet our requirements. DreamGuy (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was the one who prodded this lady. I would suggest deleting the article as Original Research. A note has been placed on the Talk Page of the writer, who has submitted nothing else to WP. This seems to be a blatant case to me. If it is rewritten and resubmitted, then a new decision could be made. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should be speedy deleted ASAP for myriad reasons, as noted above. Wikipedia is not for getting business or having your resume circulated. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this spamvertising. The absence of reliable sources that discuss the subject of a BLP in any depth that might help establish notability and allow for verification of claims made is usually strong grounds for deletion.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This is a clearly notable play writer. Easily passes WP:CREATIVE. Article needs to be cleaned-up. Not deleted. Varbas (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This account was blocked as a sock of a banned used, so invalid vote. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note This account was determined to be a sockpuppet account while a banned editor (who abused AFD votes by making false claims about notability and using multiple accounts to stuff votes) was being investigated. Not sure why this account remains unblocked. DreamGuy (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Please abide by your Wikipedia:Editing restrictions that have been placed on you by the Arbitration Committee. Varbas (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, you are still making that false claim even after having been told that nobody ever said you were "not guilty" and they instead at that time ruled that it was quite possible that you were the banned editor but that they didn't have enough info at that time to block you. And of course you know that you are currently still under an open investigation, especially after your recent behavior. Please do not try to deceive people by making highly deceptive statements about what the sockpuppet investigation. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 28 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) 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I count four Delete votes (one of those Speedy) to one Keep vote (by a questionable account). Normally that would be a pretty clear consensus already reached. DreamGuy (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for failing WP:N and WP:BIO. Reads like a rèsumè. Orginal research. Advertisement. Edison (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep because the subject is probably in fact notable; the publication record can be shown [75] , and if the plays can be shown to have been produced where the article claims, she's notable as having written them. COI as usual makes for a very bad article, but the subject can be notable nonetheless. Have either of the two people saying delete thought to look for sources? DGG (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean "two people saying delete"? Five people have said delete. And this AFD should have been closed long ago as having clear consensus, and it still does. Mere existence of plays doesn't mean that they are notable or that she is ntoable by extension. We need good reliable coverage to demonstrate that, which isn't there. DreamGuy (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to explain how 5 - 3 is "clear" consensus? Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly, at the time of the comment the vote was 5-2. However, he noted "long ago" which suggests, when coupled with his response to relisting, that he was referring to the 4-1 prior to relist, a clear consensus when one weighs the fact that one gives reason for speedy deletion and the sole keep has been determined to be a sockpuppet. لennavecia 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    5-2 (discounting sockpuppet vote) is a clear consensus. 6-2 now even more so. DreamGuy (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per DGG. This just needs a cleanup. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - autobiography that fails to establish notability Keep, I found a reliable source for the Guggenheim Fellowship. لennavecia 19:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep and expand. If this is true: "Guggenheim Fellowship, a Rockefeller Fellowship, the Susan Smith Blackburn Prize, the Rosenthal Prize, the Writers Guild Award, and three fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts" then she is a major playwright. Certainly, she's had shows at major regional theaters....there must be reviews. I would go so far as to say that all winners of the Susan Smith Blackburn Prize are inherently notable. Autobiography is tacky, but does not undermine notability - Vartanza (talk) 05:34, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Amor De Madre[edit]

    Amor De Madre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Insufficient sources, WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:29, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Hmph, telenovelas... nothing to say when it'll be done or even a castlist so yep, this is gazing into the glassball. treelo radda 16:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Most sources listed aren't reliable; essentially this is a crystal ball thing. Karanacs (talk) 16:37, 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 13:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Heighington CE Primary School[edit]

    Heighington CE Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested PROD. Non-notable secondary school. I propose deletion or a redirect. Having an outstanding OFSTED inspection doesn't make a small school notable. Computerjoe's talk 19:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I think a script played up. Computerjoe's talk 16:38, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - There is widespread consensus that primary schools are not notable. Eusebeus (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep While I agree that the vast majority of primary schools are not notable, the multiple sources supporting the school's top Ofsted ranking established notability for this particular school. Alansohn (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Many schools receive this rating. Computerjoe's talk 19:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The top Ofsted ranking should be enough, the fact that many (not nearly most) get it is irrelevant. I also cannot see why American high schools are automatically notable but other schools are not. Is this some sort of ageism? That'a a serious question. Dougweller (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      High schools are bigger. Computerjoe's talk 22:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Not always, but I agree usually. Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The Ofsted Grade 1 is a notable distinction for an elementary school. --Jmundo 15:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Many schools are grade 1; it is not really a claim to notability. Computerjoe's talk 15:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the highest award a primary school can attain in the UK, right? tedder (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't an award. OFSTED must inspect all state schools in England. They then issue a report, grading the school between 1 and 4. Computerjoe's talk 16:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is still notable. I don't understand the logic where a failing secondary school of 800 can be more notable than a primary school the same size with a Grade 1 report. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A primary school of that size would be notable, quite amazing! This school has 260 pupils. Failing secondaries are a major political issue and the press coverage they get often extends far beyond local press by the way. There's probably thousands of grade 1 primaries. Computerjoe's talk 19:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as "primary versus secondary" schools are concerned, secondary schools are generally kept per the common deletion outcomes. You may also be interested in notability guidelines for schools (failed consensus, but is helpful), and the essay at WP:HS. tedder (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but what I don't understand is why this stuff is not actually in the guidlines -- and CDO just seems self-perpetuating -- we did this in 2006 so we should be doing it now. It seems to be treated as though it's an unofficial guideline, and that just seems wrong to me.Dougweller (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Most Primary Schools (even the best ones) are generally NN. The best solution is usually to merge the substatinive content of the article to that on the place where the school is. This has the effect of preserving the best of the content. I think the rationale of the policy of treating all secondary schools are notable (even if currently failing), is that they may be the alma mater of a notable alumnus, whereas a person's primary education is rarely a notable feature of their later life. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The school is evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't evident at all. Computerjoe's talk 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had no difficulty adding some more material and another citation just now. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:32, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Two Twenty Two[edit]

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

    This unreferenced article makes statements that several google searches could not verify or even circumstantially support. I can't find any evidence that 222 is considered an unlucky number or that it has any relevance to cannabis culture, jamaican culture or anything at all. Forget that it's poorly written, forget that it is two separate articles conjoined, forget the lack of referencing and style issues. The big problem is that its core subject is false, or at least not verifiable. And therefore should be deleted. Carbon Rodney 10:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I guess in this Fiji mermaid the second half is the real article, the spam, about the Canadain (sic) Music Duo and the first part is a parody regarding 420 which means something in Cannabis culture although no one really knows how that got started because they were stoned at the time and it probably was just a joke to make somebody think it meant something when it really didn't anyhow. So the whole article is indeed WP:MADEUP. Drawn Some (talk) 10:50, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bridesman[edit]

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

    This article does not appear to be notable at all (a Google search returns dubious results (Yahoo! Answers, etc.) and the article is not linked to by any page in the article namespace. JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep do a Google news search for all dates and there are lots of results for in-depth, non-trivial articles in reliable sources, not just in the tabloids like the NY Post but in the broadsheets like the Washington Post where none other than Miss Manners weighs in even though we don't know what she thinks about it from the free part. Fortunately Groomsmaid hasn't quite caught on as well. Yet. Drawn Some (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - OK, there might be news articles on it, but what about other sources (books, online articles, etc.)? Would we keep articles that have been covered in the news once? Just my opinion - mind you, I'm not exactly a good source of information on this subject! JulieSpaulding (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not if it was one article but this seems to meet the general guidelines, see WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 11:19, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep.I found a couple of books dating back to the 1800s that give an idea of the historical usage of the term. "The Table Book" and "The Lover's Lexicon" (I've shortened both titles as they're incredibly long). Combined with the sources Drawn Some found regarding current usage, above, this could certainly be written into a decent article.--Susan118 (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak keep I think this might be a WP:NNN, but it certainly passes WP:N and probably slides by WP:NNN as the sources found above appear non-trivial. Hobit (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I actually closed this as "keep" with two !votes because I viewed them as sound but my close was reverted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge (or delete) If we get good sources, it should be merged to Wedding ceremony participants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 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. With the sources MookieZ cited now included in the article, the keep arguments are stronger than those in favor of deletion. Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Solar System (song)[edit]

    Solar System (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The article essentially reiterates the infobox; there is no content or notability here and this is probably true for dozens of Beach Boys song articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • A7. The band is notable, the album is notable, but there seems to be nothing to signify notability of this particular song. HJMitchell You rang? 21:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Love You (album). Mandsford (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as an unlikely redirect term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This page does need work. But, according to WP:N, the general notability guideline is: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Off the top of my head, I can think of at least two sources which deal with this song in sufficient detail, Inside The Music Of Brian Wilson by Phillip Lambert, and Andrew G. Doe & John Tobler's book which I forget the name of at the moment. So, in my opinion, it passes the notability guideline. Again, though, it does need work. MookieZ (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't forget Peter Carlin's book. Rlendog (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - per MookieZ, passes WP:N due to multiple independent sources covering the song. And WP:N trumps WP:MUSIC, since WP:MUSIC is just an add on to the general notability standard. And the title is perfectly valid and appropriate per WP:DAB. Rlendog (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No proof of notability (the title must be changed in order to avoid confusion with scientific content) Rirunmot (talk) 01:44, 28 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) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment when someone actually finds and cites the sources, they can be judged better. DGG (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It didn't apparently chart, or otherwise meet indications of notability as a stand alone. I recommend against a redirect, although it's preferable to a keep. Every song on an album does not warrant an article of its own. Shadowjams (talk) 09:33, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Camryn Kiss[edit]

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

    non-notable pornographic actress. First criteria of WP:PORNBIO is not satisfied as she didn't win nor have nominations in multiple years. Trivial coverage in American porn trade journals, AVN and XBIZ. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Is the first criteria supposed to mean that they must have won during multiple years or been nominated in multiple years? Or does it mean that they must have won just once or have been nominated in multiple years? To me, it could be read both ways and I was reading it the second way when I contested the prod. Dismas|(talk) 11:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The second way. That award listed is just an award nomination. She has not won anything yet and I believe she's already retired. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:30, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Can't have a bio without sources. Rd232 talk 00:13, 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. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Myzery[edit]

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

    Poorly-constructed, unsourced, recreation of previously deleted article. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:30, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Karl Marlantes[edit]

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

    Contested prod. Novelist with no assertion of notability, other than the fact he has a book available on Amazon. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment He has a lot of awards and honors, I don't know if any of them are considered important enough to satisfy WP:BIO or not, maybe the sum of them are. Also follow this link: http://www.elleonliteraryarts.org/authors.php from the article and there is a whole list of authors and I am betting more or all of them have articles and that some of them may not be notable. Drawn Some (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know. The opening sentence states that he is best known as a writer, but his awards were honors related to his military service. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:17, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete One published book, in almost no libraries so far. Navy cross is second level, and while it might possibly give an indication of notability, it would need more information. The WP article is a close paraphrase of the bio at ellon Books. The book and author may become notable, but it is not yet. Dunin's review is not a review but an announcement of a reading, and blurbs from other authors are not taken seriously as reliable. If Stallworthy is actually right, there will be sources. No prejudice against recreation when that happens. DGG (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per DGG. (How often is that said without sarcasm? ;)). لennavecia 19:20, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wilfried Ellmer[edit]

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

    While this is an intesting factoid, I cannot find any further trace of notablity of this person, nor do I have any indication that his "concrete submarine" ever made it into mass production. Passportguy (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Sigh. If this were the trivia wiki, this might fit. It isn't, so it doesn't. I suspect advertising.Tyrenon (talk) 03:56, 22 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) 00:00, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gabe Cornman[edit]

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

    A championship is claimed, thus making this not A7 eligible. But the championship itself must be notable, and this one just not appear so to me. And absolutely nothing else in the article shows notability, IMHO. TexasAndroid (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete: the only reasonable notability claim is gold medal in a contest without wikipedia article, hence of unknown notability. Mukadderat (talk) 00:10, 22 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) 00:00, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Norwich Film Festival[edit]

    Norwich Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable film festival. A Google News Archive search returns no results to establish this company's notability. A reason could be that the festival was founded in 2009 — this year. I would not prejudice against recreation of this article if more sources surface at a later time. Cunard (talk) 22:28, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please allow this entry to stay. The festival is in its first year and gaining publicity fast, but this site helps. If you take us down because we are not noteworthy enough, no one will learn about us and we will never become noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellen63 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no sources to establish ntoability and the above comment indicates the purpose of the article is promotional (i.e., spam). -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete. The festival is in its first year and gaining publicity fast, but this site helps says it all. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:46, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    David V. Johnson[edit]

    David V. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A7 CSD was declined, saying notability is asserted. I'm sorry, but I just do not see how this meets notability requirements. TexasAndroid (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment He has gotten awards. You can debate whether or not the awards are notable, though. --I dream of horses (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The reason I declined this speedy (as a non-admin) is that the subject's notability is asserted by the awards he won, one of which looks pretty big to me. Whether these claims are dubious or the awards are not notable is another matter. Bottom line, the claims have been made, and that alone is enough for an article to get past Speedy Deletion. It is here at AfD that we can evaluate whether these claims can be substantiated, not at SD. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:01, 22 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) 23:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There are quite a lot of news stories about his development activities, though it will take careful handling. See [78] . thje present article is a piece of PR fluff, but it need not be. the Entrepreneur of the Year award was in 96 [79], but I havent found it yet. DGG (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The source listed for the award is a press release from prwire.com, which isn't considered a reliable source. I didn't find any reliable sources in a Google search either - it's all sites related to his business, which aren't considered reliable. Without 2nd party sources, it doesn't look to me like the award is notable. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Urban Land Institute Award for Excellence - 17 Google hits all either trivial mentions or from Johnson's own business sites. The only "news" hit is a press release, which isn't reliable or 2nd party per WP:RS.
    • Entrepreneur of the Year from USA Today, again only 10 Google hits, all from Johnson's own business sites, and nothing from Google news, not even from USA Today.
    • Environmentalist of the Year, Michigan Chamber of Commerce 3 hits, all from Johnson's business sites, no news hits.
    • Developer of the Year, Building Industry Association - 2 Google hits from Johnson's businesses, 1 news hit, unfortunately one would have to pay to see it, but it seems like a passing mention - the title is simply "People on the Move" - and at any rate it doesn't add up to significant coverage in reliable independent sources.
    • Distinguished Community Leader, Bloomfield Hills Rotary Club 3 hits, all from Johnson's business sites; no news hits.
    I don't see any independent evidence that attests to the notability, or even the existence in some cases, of these "awards" - it's all from primary sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Notability not established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Possibly self-promotional. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Keep arguments based on awards hold no water per Dawn Bard. (Nice work.) Notability not established, merely a puffed up and apparently fabricated promotional piece. لennavecia 15:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – It appears that the Entrepreneur of the Year award was from Ernst & Young, not USA today [80]. From what I can tell, he won the regional version of the award and was a finalist (but not winner) of the national version. –Megaboz (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sticking with my delete vote, but thank you for the clarification. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete – After looking into this further, I believe his listed awards to be legitimate, but I'm not convinced they are significant enough for him to meet the notability guideline. There are many reliable sources which mention him, but the coverage is typically focused on the actions of his companies and not specifically on him. For instance, the Urban Land Institute Award for Excellence appears to have been given to the Victor International Corporation and not to an individual [81]. I was unable to find any reliable sources which have him as the main subject of their coverage. –Megaboz (talk) 01:47, 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 G11 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    All American Security Systems, Inc.[edit]

    All American Security Systems, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Blatant SPAM, Speedy declined, PROD removed. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Local security company, no indication of notability. I'd be tempted to forgive spammyness ("Their customers know that if they have a problem, they can call and get fast service") if I thought the company was notable, but beyond the fact that "Pete" was a Vietnam fighter pilot I ain't seeing notability. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, local business with no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, No indication of notability. Also borderline spam. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete - no reason to not speedy it, blatant spam. Just some local company posting an ad. DreamGuy (talk) 20:18, 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.
    1. ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
    2. ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.…
    3. ^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.
    4. ^ Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.
    5. ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
    6. ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
    7. ^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
    8. ^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_28&oldid=1142643758"