Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 23

< 22 October	24 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myka, Relocate[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BAND. Evil saltine (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Doesn't assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 per TenPoundHammer. Band fails WP:MUSIC and does not assert notability. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Insufficient reliable and independent sources are available to demonstrate notability ~ mazca ^talk 00:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuff Tonneaus[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, no refs, and reads like an Ad. Making parts for certain notable car makers doesn't make you notable IMO. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:COMPANY, since as far I can tell it hasn't "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." I'm not sure if I agree with the nominator that it reads like an ad, but I will agree that no notability has been asserted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While Tuff Tonneaus generates an impressive 856,000 Google hits, nearly all of what I am seeing is advertising/product purchasing type pages, as opposed to "reliable, independent" sources as cited by WP:COMPANY. As such, I'm not convinced it qualifies for notability. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Insufficient evidence of notability per WP:CORP. ~ mazca ^talk 00:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BC Pizza[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable. Does not meet WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good pizza, but I've found absolutely no secondary sources, not even local coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I hate to see any article about a restaurant chain, past or present, deleted, although this one [1] doesn't appear to have found operating outside of Michigan to be profitable (according to the current page, it has 30 locations in Michigan and 1 in Georgia). Mandsford (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as uncited corporation functioning as promo Run-of-the-mill small pizza chain in a local community. I could write a hundred articles on pizza chains with more than ten locations just in the state of Florida. Miami33139 (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried a speedy deletion but it was rejected. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudolina[edit]

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

Probable hoax. PubMed returns no results for "Pseudolina". Google returns few results, none about an herb. Almost wanted to speedy, but wanted to be completely sure. Evil saltine (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if PubMed is what I think it is, I can't imagine this being missed. Moreover, Google returns only one hit for Pseudolina crescentum — and it's this article. I would guess that it's impossible (barring a complete crash by Google) for this search to return no mentions in reliable sources if it's a real species. Even Cletocamptus helobius, a tiny obscure crustacean, gets 9,500 hits. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing on Google. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but the "Pseudo" part of the name strikes my gut instinct that it's probably a hoax. If the plant has been used since "the 13th Century" as the article purports, one has to think someone would have mentioned it somewhere on the Internet. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a strong consensus here that this album has demonstrated sufficient notability, both through multiple reliable-source reviews and the general notability of the band. ~ mazca ^talk 00:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copacetic[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines wp:note Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is deleted (I haven't formed an opinion yet), then it should be replaced by a soft redirect to Wiktionary - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copasetic, a recent discussion about a different article that this title previously redirected to (this article was then at Copacetic (album)). Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First of all, this article is not about definition in the Wiktionary. Second, I have no idea where the editor who nominated this gets the idea that it doesn't meed notability guidelines. If it does, than no other album articles do. ----DanTD (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes other album articles need to be deleted that don't meet guidelines. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major-label album by notable artist. Has an allmusic review, I'm sure more sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple significant coverage demonstrates notability. Allmusic review in article + [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. This is why we have WP:BEFORE.--Michig (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. (And whenever Ten Pound votes keep, you can bet it meets the most stringent analysis -- ;-) (Can someone snow close this?)--Epeefleche (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band certainly seems notable, and considering this album was reviewed by both Allmusic and Rolling Stone, I would consider that sufficient to warrant meeting WP:NALBUMS. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons explained by Michig and others: major-label debut album by notable band, plenty of non-trivial media coverage. This one's a no-brainer. WP:BEFORE involves a bit more than slapping a "notability" tag on an article the day before nominating it for deletion! Contains Mild Peril (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metrogenious[edit]

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

WP:NEO created by the author; WP:OR. I42 (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wow, not only is it a useless neologism, but it's a misspelled useless neologism. That's impressive. Presumably he coined the word by analogy with "heterogeneous" and "homogeneous", but, well, then it would be "metrogeneous", not "metrogenious". Not that that really matters, since even if it were spelled correctly this would still fail WP:NEO, but anyway... —Smeazel (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO, again, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 09:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a term for which this would be a reasonable redirect? Otherwise, delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt A user space version should through DRV before this is recreated at any spelling. Miami33139 (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform Polychora Project[edit]

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

This is a research project to catalog mathematical objects called polychora. The notability of the objects themselves is not disputed but project is not notable in that it involves only a few people and the article does not list any third party mention of it, nor did a web search produce any such evidence of notability. There is some general information in the article but this is already contained in Uniform polychoron.

I agree on delete - I'm in contact with the participants, but existence itself is not notable. It makes no sense to have this poorly written article about it on Wikipedia. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an interesting stub. It would definitely be worth trying to come up with decent references so that it can be kept. Otherwise, I must concur that delete is the appropriate course of action. 173.75.156.204 (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well redirect to uniform polychlora and merge the content there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Content could be moved, but the sources of information on this basically is Bowers' personal website, and Stella4D software which can generate the 1849 uniform polychora (counting convex, nonconvex, and excluding prismatic forms. I also have a 2006 PDF paper from George Olshevsky Uniform Panoploid honeycombs enumerating 143 convex uniform tetracombs, 4d parallels to the 28 uniform convex honeycombs. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is spam. Spam with 15 Google hits. Abductive (reasoning) 16:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Blog's "Chart" is not notable. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 23:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one singles of 2009 (B Zone)[edit]

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

Non notable list of records from the authors blog. Prod removed with no explanation Malcolma (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:IAR, non-notable list. May qualify as a subpage of a nonexistant parent. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Del. Appears to be a cut & paste job direct from the blog. --Whoosit (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - It's a list of one non-notable person's favourite songs by week. If this stays, I'll be doing a list of the songs I had at No1 in my chart from when I did student radio at University (2001 to 2004). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists the number one songs on a singles chart run by a non-notable blog. Completely non-notable. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm in the uncomfortable position of having to delete an article in the face of a substantial "keep" majority. But Whoosit is exactly right: this man may very well be notable, but as long as even the essentials of his biography are not verifiable (and they don't seem to be; the stub article is "sourced" only to an Amazon search results page) this WP:BLP must go. It may be restored as soon as a decently reliable biography of Mr. Mayo is found. Sandstein 22:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert B. Mayo[edit]

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

Previously deleted at Herbert Buddy Mayo as nonsense/attack. This version is better, but it still is dubious. G4 hangon'd, but after talking to an admin on MSN I (begrudgingly) agreed it was not G4. Author explained "The persons editing this page believe that Dr. Mayo belongs on the TCNJ Wikipedia page, under sub-heading "Notable Faculty", for he has had much to give back to the college, not including donating a generous amount to the school's Music Department to help renovate a concert hall" which I think is tenuous. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be no reliable biographical info available online. Notability cannot be established. --Whoosit (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, speedy close, newbie-biting. Earlier today the article creator wrote a joke article about this professor, which was speedied. He returned to attempt to write a legit article, but has apparently been driven off by drive-by taggers who barraged the article with deletion nominations only minutes after he began writing it. "Herbert B. Mayo" gets over 500,000 GHits, which is the same order of magnitude as those for "Theodore R. Sizer," a very notable academic whose name I picked out because his obituary ran nationally today. I really, really doubt Mayo is anywhere near as notable as Sizer, judging mainly by the NY Times piece I read, but the Google hits instead reflect the ubiquity of the textbooks he was written -- and writing frequently used textbooks is one way of satisfying criteria 4 of WP:PROF. So how about backing off and showing more civility towards (and help from those knowledgeable on the subject, which doesn't include me) a new editor who screwed up and is trying to make amends. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see this as newbie biting. The article needs dire cleanup, but I don't know where to start. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow, Hullaballoo... Where did you get 500,000 GHits? I only got 149,000, only related to his books, with zero bio info. GNews only gives 8 hits. None related to the subject. I see no verifiable bio info online. That makes it quite hard to write BLP. If you can show me where to find the sources, I will reassess my !vote. --Whoosit (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 25 Google Books hits, but I strongly oppose speedy close and object to the bad faith being shown by Hullaballoo. However, this article needs a lot of work, and better sourcing for a BLP. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain your accusation of bad faith. I've posted similar comments in other debates, and in particular in the WP:Requests_for_comment/new_users discussions. Your claim that my comments were not made in good faith is inexplicable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and newbie-biting are bad faith personal attacks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not so. Commenting that particular conduct violates WP:BITE, which is a guideline, is plainly not a personal attack: "discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack." "Speedy close" is simply a comment on the merits of the AFD discussion. However, groundlessly accusing another editor of "bad faith" is a personal attack, and you should retract that statement, since you still have provided any plausible basis for alleging that my comments were not made in good faith. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If it can be shown that his textbooks are widely used and influential , he would be notable. For the record of the US academic library holdings, see WorldCat. The holdings aren't great, but they do indicate use beyond a single institution.I see from that page that Investments: an introduction has been translated into Chinese and Polish, and Basic finance into Chinese--details at [7]. This would seem to indicate widespread use--routine textbooks are not usually translated. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With an h-index of 4 and a top WorldCat holding of 148, I do not think he meets WP:PROF criterion #1. However, based on a search for syllabi listing his books, I think he meets WP:PROF criterion #4 (significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions).--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eric Yurken, meeting WP:PROF criterion 4. I comment, regarding HW, that requesting a speedy close accuses the nominator of either deliberately disruptive behavior or clear ignorance of deletion policy. Since only a loon could believe the latter, bad faith is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw. However, in accordance with WP:AGF, I choose to believe that HW did not understand the usual rules under which a speedy close might be granted. Ray^Talk 00:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrated response. Not to be pedantic, but your comments reflect the guideline for speedy keep, not speedy close. There's an important difference, and it's even recognized to some extent in the text of WP:Speedy keep, which refers to the "early close" of an AFD and some of reasons why a discussion may be "speedily closed." Here are several examples of other editors using the same phrases in situations where it can't possibly mean "speedy keep," including one less than three weeks old. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. The exact phrase has been used nearly 3000 times in discussions, mostly in circumstances where it's pretty clearly not equivalent to "speedy keep." I don't want to seem confrntational for all the argument I'm doing, but if I meant to call for a speedy keep per the applicable guideline, I would have said "speedy keep." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I think you've defended yourself admirably. Thanks for staying calm and explaining. Ray^Talk 04:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry to be the doofus here, and please don't take this in the wrong way, but I could not find biographical references for this man. There's this [15] but that's all. Yes, his name is on a lot textbooks. But there is nothing written about the man himself. Can you guys explain to me how some author credits on Amazon.com and an email address on a college website pass muster for reliably-sourced material? There's simply not enough info available to properly source even this three line stub bio. --Whoosit (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Insufficient reliable source coverage to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 00:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Cow BASIC[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Why delete? This is for hobby programmers. There should be article about free open source software for microcontrollers.

I said why. The article fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, free basic compilers for PIC are not exactly 10 a penny, not sure the arrogant tone is exactly in the spirit of Wikipedia either, heh, anyway, I vote....Hideki (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not? Joe Chill (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just needed to find information on this language and the page is here, had it not been I'd have been left looking, okay I'm a very small sample but I doubt I'm the only one Hideki (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yawn. WP:BURDEN. There are cases when useful things are too obscure for Wikipedia. Miami33139 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenia Hrabovskaya[edit]

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

I'm not able to find notability requirements for beauty pageant winners, but I don't think she is notable. Removed a gallery of copyvios, no references to establish any sort of notability, claim to fame is a win at a Russian beauty pageant. Says she "became the finalist of Miss Russia 2009", but appears to be representing Russia despite the loss in the Miss International 2009. I don't know. Maybe winning that will make her notable, but she's not there yet. Lara 20:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nom and the fact that the runner up in the Miss Russia 2009 competition appears to be a different Ksenia. Listed in the Miss Russia 2009 article is "Ksenia Shipilova" and they don't look like the same girl. Also the name of the article doesn't match the name of the images, a K appearing as the first letter in the images. Searching that name brings up this page, which confirms the two Ksenia's are different, both participating in the pageant, the other one placing. Hits on the current spelling bring up a lot of blog articles announcing her as the winner of a contest that hasn't taken place yet. Otherwise, there doesn't appear to be anything of note. Lara 20:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, article misrepresents everything. Jennavecia has done great research here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I placed this article because she is a contestant of the beauty pageant that soon will be held. The Internet don't have more detailed information about her, so this article may be useful for people who watch this pageant. I agree the information will be unuseful if she will not win. But now it is not right. User talk:Djyys 14:44 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of any significant accomplishments as a beauty pageant contestant. Putting up an article because she is in a contest that will soon be held smacks of crystal ballery. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

What about this pages?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Wikstedt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Pastrana

They are also only contestants of the pageant User talk:Djyys 14:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Black Kite 11:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TeleForm[edit]

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

reads like an advert and review of a product, insufficient references RJFJR (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is very promotional in nature however, the software does appear to be notable. Searching for sources is difficult as the news results are almost (but not entirely) press releases. Business Week took notice of the software when it was launched in 1991. Infoworld wrote about it in 1992. Network World wrote about it 1999. IT Jungle wrote about it in 2004. This San Diego Business Journal article from 1991 is behind a pay wall but appears to be about the company and not a press release. The coverage spans multiple years so it's not just a blip of coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:BURDEN. The article needs cleanup to remove promotional verbiage, it also needs sources added. My vote will change to keep if someone does these things during the time the article is on AfD. Miami33139 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is to determine the potential of the article and not on its current state. We don't delete an article if it can meet the inclusion criteria but needs cleanup. Based on your statement, it soulds like you agree the sources are sufficient but you want to see the promotional material cleaned up. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have a stricter criteria than "potential." That may be an outlying opinion but I don't believe that an article that is unfixed after a week needs to be here. The sources don't exist in the article. Miami33139 (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is actually contrary to Wikipedia:Deletion policy which states that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." -- Whpq (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Delete and start from scratch is a valid outcome for articles written so poorly it would take more effort to fix then re-write. This is one of those cases. There is an interesting experimental wikiproject, Wikipedia:Article Incubator that this might qualify for. Miami33139 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Whpq. Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while 37,600 Google hits is insufficient on its own to merit notability, it does appear to have been the focus of an eWeek magazine article, as well as a Data Based Advisor article, among other hits. 403 Google news hits would seem to establish notability. Current state of the article is insufficient grounds for deletion. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 22:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael H. Kenyon[edit]

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

Clear case of WP:ONEEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWS also applies. This individual apparently committed a number of unusual sexual assaults in the 1960s and 1970s. These crimes received some local news coverage. There is also a claim that a song and a film were inspired by them, but no sources are provided for these assertions. The only sources cited are local newspapers. There isn't enough material here for an article, certainly not a BLP. *** Crotalus *** 20:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with the deletion. He seems like it's a subject that is rather avid on Google so it was obviously not a 1 time event. He was a criminal, and seems decently documented. businessman332211 (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:GHITS — just because a person or incident has a lot of search engine hits does not mean they automatically meet notability requirements. What we need is reliable sources that show non-trivial coverage that goes beyond just the local news. *** Crotalus *** 21:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing on google books or scholar, little enough on a general search once -wiki -wikipedia added to the term, and two stories from the Chicago Tribune for 1975 in google news. Google is not the be all and end all of sources, but this simply won't do, certainly not for a BLP. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak keep. "Enema Bandit, -zappa" does get a fair number of GBook hits, however, very few of them mention the subject by name nor is there much depth to the reports. The Frank Zappa song is real and is likely more notable that the subject of this article. Location (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This will be very hard to source from typical internet age sources and it appears on the bottom that there are significant paper archives out there. This is a unique type of rape that certainly caught media attention at the time, and moves this away from the typical NOTNEWS argument. Miami33139 (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a subject that is avid on Google - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added some references from Google Books and Scholar. Jokestress (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faucet Direct[edit]

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

article does not cite notability. UltraMagnus^speak 19:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unremarkable internet business. No claim to notability. --Whoosit (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A Google News search turns up press releases and some items from Chico Enterprise-Record which establishes that there may be some local coverage, but I don't see that establishing notability for the company. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theories used in research[edit]

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

A non-notable declined copyvio speedy that consists of a listing various theories used in certain fields. Each sub-list is apparently a copy/paste from various places on the web (most of which aren't compatible with BY-CC-SA). Aside from the apparent copyright issues, this would appear to be violating WP:NOTDIR, as it just is a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". Bfigura ^(talk) 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, for the reasons above. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and WP:NOTDIR. decltype (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure whether a list of this sort passes the threshold of originality; but it is a more or less random list of subjects, or more likely non-subjects, that neither provides navigation to other articles and fails to explain what these subjects have in common. A far more baleful prospect is its open invitation to create new articles on subjects like "knowledge-based theory of the firm", which are unlikely to contain information or be read for edification or pleasure. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Mother of God! Knowledge-based theory of the firm. I came too late, it seems. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that was nominated as a speedy two minutes after its creation because it was believed to be a copyright violation; if that is the case, then it would be a speedy. On the other hand, if it's not a copyvio, and if this isn't a case of Cmcntsh (C. McIntosh?) being a sock, then I'd be interested in seeing if there could be something that explains the theories. Certainly, this is a good faith nomination, but I have to laugh at the talk page entries for User talk:Cmcntsh: Welcome to Wikipediaf! By the way, you know that article you wrote? Well... Mandsford (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did nom right after creation, since I saw it as a blatant copy and paste G12. It was speedied, but declined by Decltype (above). (The reason for the decline was that xe didn't feel it was a good speedy candidate since it was just a list). I'm not sure I agree with that, but since neither of us are lawyers, I thought I'd list it here rather than WP:CV. PS, I agree that biting newbies is bad, but I think copyright problems are just as bad, if not worse. (And not to badger, but why keep?) --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for two reasons. First, this is indeed a copyvio -- anything that is derivative of the form of a copyrighted text is a copyvio unless it meets fair use criteria, which this does not. Second, it is not in any case encyclopedic, being merely an agglomeration of theories that happen to be studied in a particular place. Looie496 (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support WP:NOTDIR and copivivo concerns here and add a two-step note: (i) the article title is inappropriately broad, which is mendable, off course, but this brought me to (ii) that mere names of many theories (in that list) do not tell much. They should be at least wikilinked or explained, and I doubt it is always possible. Just a random example, "Mathematical Problem Solving" can refer to almost anything. Materialscientist (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And redirect to Constantine I#Sickness and death for good measure. Sandstein 07:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Constantine[edit]

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

No reason to have this as a separate article, re-stating info that is included, with far better context, in the main article on Constantine I. Constantine ✍ 18:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible hoax; he might still be alive, after all. And at any rate, the subject is already covered at Constantine I#Sickness and death, which would make this a content fork. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but please contribute to Constantine I as described above. I suppose we could say that he's still alive in the spiritual sense, playing the harp. Mandsford (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant to better written section Constantine I#Sickness and death. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 06:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his article; there's nothing so bad that this must be deleted when it could be a possible search target. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per what I think is the intent of all of the above. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Strikes me as a content fork. I'm unconvinced that anyone would actually search for this specifically as opposed to just going to Constantine I itself. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile Rock (nightclub)[edit]

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

Blatant advertisement, including full street address. No assertion of notability beyond a list of musical acts who've performed at the club. King Öomie 18:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons as stated by AfD nominator. Alphageekpa (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This came down to a judgement call between AFD and CSD G11. If an admin feels it's speedy material, I have no qualms with you deleting it (assuming this AFD doesn't acquire any keep !votes.) --King Öomie 19:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable nightclub. At least this didn't get called "August 2009 Allentown parking lot shooting incident". Mandsford (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empyria[edit]

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

Long article on Canadian band, but nothing in it shows that the band meets WP:MUSIC. Prod tag removed without explanation. No reliable independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — JUJUTACULAR | TALK 11:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JUJUTACULAR | TALK 11:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yesterday this article was deleted, I removed the prod tag and I did include an explanation and then got the article proof read by User:RepublicanJacobite and given the OK. To summarize, I took an existing approved article on prog band thor (band) and changed citations and refs. The bottom line is that this article on empyria is by me user:empyria not affiliated to the band except that I know them. It has the same number of external citations and refs as the existing thor (band) article. I cite AMG and rockdetector as well as a discography. 2 of the founders of Empyria also play in thor (band). So if you feel this article should be deleted, please explain what makes thor (band) noteworthy of keeping or what I have failed to comply with in WP:MUSIC or what is the purpose of getting someone to proof read the article only for you to delete it. I cannot find the consistency in the logic Empyria (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded, thor's allmusic link has a bio, empyria's does not. thor's article included articles on multiple RCA albums, a claim of notability, empyria's does not. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you point me to which of the 12 WP:BAND criteria it meets? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence from WP:RS of notability per WP:BAND. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I would like to answer the queries and objections below. Firstly this is a new article and a new editor User:Phil1001 and I must say the experience has been like pushing water uphill. I created a page, based on a similar prog band which incidentally shares musicians Thor (band) had the article checked, published it and then ran into a total sh*tstorm.

While I agree that it initially fell under a Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument, you will see Duffbeerforme that I have added a bio ref (ref 4), 4 refs to a known book (ref 2), a radio interview on national radio with the band (3rd link), members of the band also play in other notable bands (KF with Warjunk, PL supported Nickleback, April Wine and Colin James). They are distributed via Nightmare Records (U.S)., Scrape Records (Canada), and Sanctuary Music (Germany) and appear in BW&BK (Canada), Heavy Oder Was?!! (Germany), Sea Of Tranquility (U.S.), Burrn! (Japan ) publications. And in answer to Epeefleche - it would be WP:BAND criteria 1, 4, 5 and 12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil1001 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC) — Phil1001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I made no argument, I answered a question. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new spa phil claims satisfying WP:BAND criteria 1, 4, 5 and 12. #1, sources are Rockdetector (I have yet to be convinced this is a reliable source), Amazon (not an independent source), allmusic (just a listing, no non trivial coverage), last.fm (not a reliable source). Does not satisfy wp:band #1. #4, I see no non trivial coverage of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. #5, which albums on what label?? (distributing label is different to releasing label), # 12, what broadcast on what national radio or TV network? When you make such claims you should back them up with evidence. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow user:Duffbeerforme cut some slack here... I understood that the idea of the Wiki was to contribute and add articles of interest, maybe not to everyones taste, the articles need to obviously be factual and unbiased and provide information. I was asked to cite sources, I used Rockdetector, Allmusic (AMG) and last.fm - these are well used sources and appear both throughout and themselves in the Wiki which implies they are valid as citations although you have yet to be convinced, otherwise we need to perform a delete on all bands that use them as a citation and then remove their own wiki entries. Furthermore a reliable source is relative, for a Genesis fan we might have a 700,000 articles - but for a small unknown offshoot of a genre we may only have 1,000 articles - so should this source be discarded?
You will see that 2 members of Empyria have gone on International tours with Thor (USA and Canada) this falls under the provision of WP:Band and members who are/were touring artists.
Empyria was interviewed and broadcast on the Drive FM, part of the Jim Pattison Group (National).
Albums have been released on Nightmare Records Inc (notable Indie) and distributed via Sanctuary Records (Iron Maiden's ex-Management group).

Under the Empyria notability tree see WP:MUSICNN

Thor (band) is notable for reasons mentioned elsewhere
- Mike Kischnik is notable for playing with Thor (Band)
- Paul Falcon is notable for playing with Thor (Band)
  - Empyria has not achieved notability standards itself. However, it’s notable because of Kischnik and Falcon being past/present Thor (Band) members AND therefore being notable members of it.

I am sure it is not supposed to be this hard to add an entry and that as long as the information is correct and unbiased it should be kept. Phil1001 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you take a deep breath to handle the obvious frustration, and then just focus on WP:BAND. Figure out which 1 (or more) of the 12 criteria it meets. Look for what wikipedia calls "reliable sources" to evidence that the band satisfies the criteria. And share what you have found.

It may seem odd, but while many, many other band articles clearly do not reflect that they meet WP:BAND criteria (if indeed they do meet such criteria), if an editor nominates an article that you are interested in for deletion then suddenly that article comes under scrutiny and is deleted if the above steps are not taken to evidence how it meets WP:BAND criteria.

While under WP:WAX you can point to the existence of other similar articles on Wikipedia as part of a cogent argument for why this article should not be deleted (though not as the sole reason for not deleting it), I think it is the rare deletion-minded editor who gives weight to that particular WP:WAX guidance.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - deep breath.
Focusing on WP:BAND criteria

WP:BAND 1) Empyria published in Sharpe-Young Garry(2003). A-Z of Power Metal (first ed.). Cherry Red Books. ISBN 1901447138.
WP:BAND 5) Empyria has released one or more albums on notable Indie label (Nightmare Records) and major label Noise Records (Germany) part of the Sanctuary group.
WP:BAND 6) Empyria has 2 notable musicians ie: musicians that have played with a notable band Thor - Mike Kischnick and Paul Falcon
WP:BAND 12) Empyria was interviewed on a national radio station The Drive part of Jim Pattison Group - interview airplayed August 7th 2009 in Salem (US).

Phil1001 (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please expand on what appears in Sharpe-Young Garry(2003). Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no coverage in secondary sources. And how hard is it to make sure the links point to the right article? Can you get any sloppier? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion on what appears in Sharpe-Young Garry(2003) for Duffbeerforme

Pages 135 and 136, covers bands history and includes biography and details of the first 4 albums.
Found additional source The Collectors Guide to Heavy Metal; by Martin Popoff (1997) contains review for "Behind Closed Doors" 8/10
To TPH and otters if you have constructive criticism or would like to point out errors in my links, then let me know so I can fix it, if you simply want brag about your editing skills, then please do it on your own page. Which secondary sources are you not finding coverage in, please clarify so I can fix it.
The whole listing is about a Canadian prog metal band and whether it meets WP:BAND which I believe it does, the page can always be beautified as long as it is factually correct.

Phil1001 (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I would suggest (though this may not be required, it would help should the article survived and be re-AfD'd) that you work footnotes into the article with the material you found.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have received sufficient coverage in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig/WP:BAND criterion 1.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to coverage in Sharpe-Young Garry with help from Popoff. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 since no one else could be bothered. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Christian[edit]

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

Par WP:BLP1E Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2008 Democratic National Convention. The incident itself seems to have gained enough coverage to be worthy of a brief mention in that article, but a separate article on Ms. Christian is unwarranted per WP:BLP1E. AJ Cham 18:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per AJCham. – ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per AJCham - Perhaps thats the best option. To much coverage to delete, to little to separate. Though it is a tad frivolous when compared to the 2008 Democratic National Convention's subject Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Inappropriate attempt for a bio (G10 / G3) Tikiwont (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Buddy Mayo[edit]

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

Herbert Buddy Mayo does appear to exist, as a professor at the College of New Jersey. However, I can't find any sources confirming that he brought the United States out of the Great Depression, or that he is a person who would meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for academics. Prod removed without comment or improvement by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm surprised neither of you deleted this as a hoax... Frank | talk 18:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as attack page. This looks to me like a student writing an article holding a prof he/she dislikes up to ridicule. Rather than reaching any conclusion about notablity (his books seem to get a lot of GHits), this nastiness should just be removed. Not quite a hoax, but close. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 11:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen Dental[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, borderline WP:SPAM, no significant coverage online in WP:RS. MuffledThud (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did you even look for sources? Admittedly, most are PR newswire sources, but I think enough are legit. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes most GNEWS hits were press releases, so not reliable per WP:RS. The remainder that you quote appear to be local press coverage, which as far as I'm aware is not an indication of company notability per WP:COMPANY: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Please correct me if I've misunderstood this. This one that you mention above doesn't actually mention Aspen Dental: maybe you meant to paste a different link? Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It mentioned it in the preview. Maybe Google choked on the link. Anyway, I've got a hard time believing that all of the hits on Google News are trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the 263 GNEWS ~~summaries~~ excerpts, nearly every single one is either a press release or a local paper saying "Aspen Dental is opening an office here in town". The few exceptions only mention the company in passing: "crime committed across the street from Aspen Dental", "...before that she was a manager of Aspen Dental", etc. If you can find 2 or 3 substantial articles from WP:RS that are actually about the company, I'll retract the nomination. I've been wrong about WP:Notability before. :-) MuffledThud (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A dentistry business with 200 franchises is probably notable, but this needs a rewrite. At first I thought it was the product of some corporate drudge, but there are similarly spammy articles from an editor who specializes in "Business Bios" [16]. Call the hygienist, this one needs a cleanup. Mandsford (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will go in and make edits adding non-Pr newswire sources. The intent is not to market or create bad articles. The frustrating part is that 90% of the articles published (and not flagged) about businesses are way more advertorial in nature than this one in particular. Your help in walking the line between a company bio and an advertisement is appreciated. BusinessBios

Content trimmed and reworked. All but one PR Web source is replaced. New sources showcase ligitimacy of Aspen Dental overall. Still working to learn. ~~BusinessBios~~ 09:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BusinessBios (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 22:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levicar[edit]

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

Only mentioned at this page. There is another "Levicar" here however it fails WP:SPS and is unrelated to this Ford version. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too obscure to mention anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Keep per Mandsford, sources do exist even though it was only a prototype. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More commonly, this is referred to as the "Levacar" [17] and [18] although it would make more sense to spell it with an "i". Probably someone spelled its attribute as "levatate" Mandsford (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of the history of Ford Motor Company and very much iconic of its time. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Howard[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, notable only for a single event RadioFan (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See the Tony Fein AfD, non-notable in life = non-notable in death no matter how tragic. Awful tragedy but Howard doesn't pass WP:ATH and sadly never will be able to.--Giants 27(c|s) 18:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic death, but he has no notability other than being murdered. Does not pass WP:ATHLETE. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hold on. The suggestion that Howard has "no notability other than being murdered" is misguided. The massive tributes being paid to Howard over the past week are not due to the fact that he was murdered. To the contrary, he is notable as a football player not as a murder victim. The outpouring of attention is the result of the fact that Howard was an extraordinarily talented football player (not to mention being a remarkable young man). He was a team leader for UConn and one of the top players in the Big East Conference. The reference to WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because we're not dealing with a living person, but more importantly because he is not just known for being murdered. And finally, WP:ATHLETE is an inclusionary policy, not an exclusionary one. College football players have long been held to qualify under general notability standards if they have received non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. Here, hundreds of media outlets across the country have been covering Howard over the past week -- not for his death but for his contributions in life. Even before his tragic death, Howard was the subject of plenty of non-trivial, mainstream media coverage. The following are a few examples of feature articles focusing on Howard (i.e., feature stories and not just game coverage) that I pulled in a five-minute search of the NewsBank database: (1) "HOWARD: BEWARE OF THE BOBCATS, NOTEBOOK", The Hartford Courant, September 2, 2009; (2) "HOWARD TALKS . . . AND LEADS, UCONN FOOTBALL", The Hartford Courant, August 26, 2009; (3) "Junior teacher UConn's Howard passes on lessons", Journal Inquirer (Manchester, CT), August 21, 2009; (4) "Jasper Howard Is Ready", The Hartford Courant, August 10, 2009; (5) "HUSKIES LISTENING TO JAZZ, HOWARD TAKING ON LEADERSHIP ROLE UCONN FOOTBALL", The Hartford Courant, March 22, 2009; (6) "UConn Football: Howard Taking On Leadership Role", McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, March 22, 2009; (7) "Howard Returns To Form For Huskies", McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, November 22, 2008; (8) "Howard keeping busy UConn cornerback expects to be challenged against Rutgers", Journal Inquirer (Manchester, CT), October 16, 2008; (9) "UConn's Howard packs big game for small size", The Daily Campus (University of Connecticut), September 24, 2008; (10) "High times for Huskies' Howard", The Daily Campus (University of Connecticut), September 24, 2008; (11) "Quick decisions Howard improving as UConn punt returner", Journal Inquirer (Manchester, CT), September 24, 2008; (12) "Howard gets nod at cornerback", McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, August 17, 2008; (13) "Howard to impact UConn defense, special teams", The Daily Campus, April 11, 2008; and (14) "'JAZ' CAN DELIVER SOME LICKS: UCONN CORNERBACK OFF TO GOOD START", The Hartford Courant, Sep 5, 2008; (15) "Howard Talked About Being A Leader In The Spring", The Hartford Courant, March 22, 2009; and (16) "New UConn Starting Cornerback A Play-Maker", by Desmond Conner, McClatchy-Tribune Business News, Sept. 5, 2008. Cbl62 (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following tribute video provides a brief glimpse of Howard's talent and helps show that it was his talents in life (and not the manner of his death) that make him notable: Jasper Howard tribute video. Cbl62 (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- comment The stabbing event might be notable, but that's a seperate issue, Wikipedia isn't here to memorialize.--RadioFan (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was expected to be an NFL player either next year or the year after. He wasn't exactly a seventh-stringer, either. Samer (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, we can't determine if he would be notable down the road.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This misses the point. It's not that he's notable for what he might have done had he lived to play in the NFL. He's notable for his accomplishments as an elite college football player at a major BCS conference program. A college football player who has received significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media passes general notability standards, regardless of whether he has ever played a game in the NFL. The substantial media coverage of Howard, even before his death, demonstrates his notability. Cbl62 (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's no less notable than baloon boy or Natalie Holloway, and they have articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.138.170 (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid argument see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before he died, Howard was already the subject of extensive media coverage based on his athletic career -- a completely different situation than a previously anonymous crime victim. Also, while page views do not necessarily mean the subject is notable, the article has received more than 7,500 page views in the past week and has had some two dozen editors contribute content. Aside from the abundant media coverage showing notability, the page views shows that this is content that users care about. Cbl62 (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment The number of page views really doesn't help this article meet notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about the 15 feature stories that were published about him in the mainstream media before his death? Cbl62 (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the obvious tragedy of the situation, the individual does neet meet the criteria for notability as outlined at WP:ATHLETE and I believe also falls under WP:BLP1E. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 15:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment misconstrues the two guidelines cited. WP:ATHLETE is a standard for automoatic inclusion of professional athletes. It is not a basis for excluding college athletes who satisfy general notability guidelines based on significan, non-trivial news coverage -- which Howard received prior to his death. And WP:BLP1E doesn't apply both because (1) Howard is not a lving person (this guidline is intended to protect the privacy of otherwise unknown living persons who have achieved limited notoriety based on a single event), and (2) Howard's notability is NOT based on his murder but on his career as a college football player, for which he received widespread media coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...or Merge(?) His life and tragic murder is notable in the context of the University and the football program, rather than being notable in of itself. This article should be deleted but perhaps elements should be edited down and merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.25.241 (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the only edit ever made to Wikipedia by this IP address. Cbl62 (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with partially merge to 2009 Connecticut Huskies football team. Grsz¹¹ 23:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to the 2009 team article really doesn't solve the issue. Howard's biggest year was 2008, and he also played on the 2007 team. Based on the pre-murder feature stories about him cited above, mostly from 2008, Howard has established notability independent of the 2009 team -- no different than other star college football players who have been the subject of multiple feature articles. Cbl62 (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been significant media coverage of his death in the United States from numerous national media outlets. ESPN, Miami Herald, USA Today, USA Today. That enough for you??? -Drdisque (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant media coverage including on ESPN. Meets notability requirements. Redfarmer (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like I said in the talk page Patrick Dennehy, the Baylor Bears men's basketball player who was murdered in 2003 has a page but he was only known for getting murdered. While it is sad, Dennehy was not a star player and was only known for his death. Jasper Howard however was a star player and looked foward to a future career in the NFL. Annie Le has a page also. She is only known for her death too. I would be fine with merging the Jasper article but not fine with getting rid of it all together. Alyssabelle818 (talk) 27 October 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I am absolutely appalled that this article has even been nominated for deletion, let alone that this nomination is supported by a number of you. The mission statement of the wiki is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." I awoke this morning to ESPN Sportscenter giving updates on the murder investigation, now a full week and a half after his death. It immediately prompted me to log into the wiki, and perform a search for Jasper Howard. Apparently ESPN (whom, I'm sorry to inform a lot of you, is a far more reputable source than the wiki) thinks Mr. Howard and his untimely death are newsworthy and worth educating the public about, and apparently I felt a need to be educated about this young man's life and untimely death, so I turned to the the wiki for information, as I always do. His death is newsworthy because: A. He was a muder victim. B. He was murdered on a college campus C. He was an athlete of notoriety whom by all accounts was tipped to play in the NFL.[19]

Annnie Le only fits two of these criteria, yet I don't hear people calling for the pages that provide information about her murder to be deleted. Is it because she went to Yale and not UConn? Maybe. Or because she was attractive and smart? Probably. Either way, they both deserve inclusion, and to include one and not the other would be biased.

I also believe that Mr. Howard deserves his own page, as opposed to Ms. Le (a search for Annie Le redirects to Murder of Annie Le) because Mr. Howard DID fulfill that third criteria of notoriety by being a star athlete. Ms. Le's notoriety is due to her bizarre and untimely death. Mr. Howard's notoriety comes from his football accomplishments at a major Division I FBS university AND his tragic and untimely death.

And by the way Giants 27, last time I checked, Division I FBS is the highest level of amateur competition for american football, and as there is no american football competition in the olympics or an amatuer american football world championships. Mr. Howard was at the time of his death a junior at the University of Connecticut. By NCAA and NFL rules, upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, only players who have completed 3 years of eligibility may enter into a professional draft. Therefore, his lack of professional status cannot be counted against him because he was never legally able to achieve that goal, although by numerous accounts, Mr. Howard would have been a professional athlete had his life not been take from him. Tslims99 (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's a campaign by some "intellectual" members of the Wikipedia community to rid it of anything having to do with sports, especially American sports. -Drdisque (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Saying he was not an NFL player is not a good enough reason to delete this article otherwise you would have delete every college football players page. Also this will be news for years and will be searched for years to come. Mr. Howard will also be brought in the news each time a college player is killed or dies and many people will want to learn more about Mr. Howard. frankie12
Delete - One event Cynof Gavuf 07:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - This is a major story that has been covered in every major news outlet in the country, people will want to come to wikipedia to learn about Jasper because he IS, in fact, NOTABLE. Why are in people in such a rush to claim that he's not notable? Ranatoro (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He meets the top level amateur level of WP:ATHLETE and received incredible media coverage in death. His college career - which received coverage on its own - means that he cannot be considered a one-event case. matt91486 (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ATHLETE does mention the top level of amateur sport but it also specifically mentions Olympic Games or World Championships, or the highest level of international competition. NCAA Football is not that. Even Div-I FBS, consists of 120 U.S. based schools which doesn't meet the letter or the spirit of WP:ATHLETE.--RadioFan (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JamieS93 17:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bobby Dunn[edit]

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

Maximalist and almost certainly COI article about a minimalist composer. Is he notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to clear up this article nominated for deletion. It is a notable entry and notable composer. Please let me know what needs to be done to clear this up and close this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henchren (talk • contribs)
Delete The Pitchfork review is a good start, but I can't find any other secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere are others featured in the September 2008 edition of the Wire Magazine (UK) and Brainwashed.com. from August/September 2009.--Henchren (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Henchren[reply]
~~Keep~~There are other online sources and articles online referencing it. Please consider checking Google finds. There are also reliable Wikipedia pages that mention and have been linked to this page. Would like to close this. --Henchren (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Henchren[reply]

Please don't double-vote. Also, you added a couple more reviews; one was on blogspot so I removed it, but the others just might cut it. I'll wait for further consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list of spurious "references" is enough to show this is self-promotion. If credible, third-party sources can be found, this might be a different matter, but i don't see any forthcoming.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)comment *that referred to various interviews and radio sources unavailable online. --Henchren (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Henchren[reply]

Thank you for linking to the article Comment, but I really do know what that word means. If you are trying to annotate your former remark, then don't waste time telling me what you meant, but by all means add those sources to the article. So far, I don't see any reliable sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*It seems it was added to the Canadian composers section on Wikipedia, and I've linked it from the legitimate sites already confirmed on Wikipedia, including Moodgadget, Howard Stelzer, and process music. I'm sorry I'm new to Wikipedia, no need for sarcastic remarks. --Henchren (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Henchren[reply]

My apologies, I didn't realize you are a newbie—we all were once, but it becomes more difficult to remember this as time goes on. In that case, what you do not seem to realise is that the four footnotes in the "References" section of this biographical article are not proper references. "Dunn on 20th century music" is an aside, as are the other three footnotes. They do not tell the reader where this information is published, or when, and this is the reason this article has been nominated for deletion: it does not establish notability. This is not the place to give a tutorial on referencing, but you should use the "Help" link in the "interaction" box at the left side of the Wikipedia main page, or link to the Editing Tutorial from the welcome message on your User page. More specifically, you should read Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails to establish notability per WP:COMPOSER. Very few reliable sources found. No major coverage. Also, this is the only article that the primary contributor (Henchren) has contributed to. His first contribution to WP was to start this article. This suggests (but does not prove) that there may be issues relating to WP:SPA and WP:COI. SnottyWong talk 15:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, love the cell-phone picture used in this article of "Kyle Bobby Dunn snacking on salted peanuts in his basement in Brooklyn, New York." That picture alone almost changed my vote (sarcasm).SnottyWong talk 16:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a G11, unambiguous advertising. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oshkosh Area United Way[edit]

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

Delete as purely promotional and provides no references for notability. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 16:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and tagged as such. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 17:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messineo's Gourmet Market[edit]

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

Non-notable local enterprise lacking GHits of substance and with no GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable per WP:COMPANY, edit history has the feel of WP:COI, though earlier spamminess has been removed. No significant coverage from WP:RS. MuffledThud (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Didn't see an acceptable source in ghits or Google News. Four employees! JohnWBarber (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - falls well short of WP:COMPANY. I can find no reliable sources writing about this gourmet market. -- Whpq (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - http://tampabaytimes.ussrv06.newsmemory.com/index.php Page T44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.8.174 (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC) — 173.169.8.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply - an advertisement in a local paper does not constitute significant coverage in a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 17:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

José Evans[edit]

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

City council is not considered notable per se. Student7 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:POLITICIAN, as there is no significant press coverage. If some is found, please disregard this !vote. Sodam Yat (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This apparently is part of someone's project to write biographies about all 29 members of Indianapolis City-County Council. Sorry, no. Not inherently notable, save the bios for the council article. Better yet, add a link to here and forget the directory [20]. Mandsford (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain There seem to be enough sources (the best GNews search is [21])--in fact , I suspect all political races for positions at this degree of importance are generally covered sufficiently by local newspapers to meet WP:GNG We have previous held that for large enough cities that councilmen can be notable as such-- this holds for Chicago, & NYC, where they play a particularly large role in government. Indianapolis Unigov is considerably smaller--880,000, so I dont think it would be automatic. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at this level IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and defaulting to keep. There have been a series of related AFDs on other Black Spring prisoners, and they all have a similar result. I do find the argument set forth by the "keep" side more well-thought out, since they relate to the sourcing and international attention, rather than a quick reference to a policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Moya Acosta[edit]

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz¹¹ 15:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. In this case, the article cites multiple events supporting notability, making the BLP1E argument plainly invalid. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Hobit (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz UltraMagnus^speak 10:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and defaulting to keep. There have been a series of related AFDs on other Black Spring prisoners, and they all have a similar result. I do find the argument set forth by the "keep" side more well-thought out, since they relate to the sourcing and international attention, rather than a quick reference to a policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro González Raga[edit]

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz¹¹ 15:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E, (why do I never get to these first?) Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates continuing international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. This is not a matter of the sort of tabloid event intended by BLP 1E. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and coverage has lasted well past the one event [[22]] Hobit (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG UltraMagnus^speak 10:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and defaulting to keep. There have been a series of related AFDs on other Black Spring prisoners, and they all have a similar result. I do find the argument set forth by the "keep" side more well-thought out, since they relate to the sourcing and international attention, rather than a quick reference to a policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adolfo Fernández Sainz[edit]

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz¹¹ 15:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grsz11, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's analysis. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. The article mentions notable recognition from the highly notable PEN organization, making the BLP1E rationale plainly invalid. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or (less ideally) merge. Plenty of sources and sources cover a wide range of time periods. This is like arguing that an author is only notable for writing a book. [23] Hobit (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz UltraMagnus^speak 10:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and defaulting to keep. There have been a series of related AFDs on other Black Spring prisoners, and they all have a similar result. I do find the argument set forth by the "keep" side more well-thought out, since they relate to the sourcing and international attention, rather than a quick reference to a policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Domínguez Batista[edit]

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz¹¹ 15:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Couldn't all these articles (the other related AfDs with the, uh...you know what I' talking about) all have been done together? Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Spring (Cuba) as a plausable search term (and agree with the above). Lugnuts (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's analysis on related articles. The fact that a large group of individuals is associated with a particular event does not mean that is the only event relating to ther notability, and prisoners of conscience, especially those recognized by Amnesty International, typically have generated significant nontrivial coverage for their activities. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Hobit (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz UltraMagnus^speak 10:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 19:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Pérez de Alejo Rodríguez[edit]

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - leader of a few different rights groups establishes atleast some notability. Grsz¹¹ 15:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article just mentions two groups, and they are probably just the same one with Spanish and English names: the human rights organization "Frente Escambray" and the "Escambray Human Rights Front". While the first is just mentioned by name in the given source, the second is not really mentioned in the link given as source (and thus, tagged with {{Failed verification}}. This is more likely just a small gathering Mr. Rodíguez himself founded and became the self-proclaimed president. --Damiens.rf 15:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On Amnesty's Prisoner of conscience list [24]. Although those two organisations are indeed the translated name of the same group, he's also noted by Amnesty for involvement with the "Proyecto Varela initiative". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many other prisoners were also involved in Proyecto Varela, that was what led the to be arrested, and then to be mentioned by Amnesty International. All revolves around the arresting. WP:SINGLEEVENT. --Damiens.rf 17:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every individual included in Amnesty International's list demonstrates continuing international coverage, and usually for significant things. Their descriptions always provide enough information to write an article--which could be fuller than the present one. In this case, he is notable for more than one event--president of Frente Escambray, is notable, whether or not the founder. BLP 1E. is thus totally irrelevant DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keeps" are pretty tentative and the lvele of professionalism is in dispute - I'll happily undelete this page if RS can be found Fritzpoll (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Sene[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable. His only activity of notability is being a participant in the reality show The Ultimate Fighter 7 which he lost in the first round. Justastud15 (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP0E. He's done nothing of note. Lara 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep: If he's professional, doesn't it mean he passes WP:ATHLETE? --Cyclopia ^talk 21:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, mixed martial arts is different from football and baseball. 24.107.210.161 (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which respect? (It is a sincere question, not a rhetorical one).--Cyclopia ^talk 02:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has no notability except for some show.24.107.210.161 (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - professional athlete would entitle him to pass WP:ATHLETE. The only concern is if the term "professional" is used in the same sense as it is in "professional wrestling", where the "professional" is used in the sense of a different discipline, rather than in the sense "they make a living off it". If he's living off his MMA, there's a presumption of notability. Which leaves the issue of finding some more reliable sources (most of those cited are arguably not independent), but that isn't necessarily an AfD issue. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three matches in the last four years, none for a major promotion. IMO, this does not qualify as competing on the fully professional level of MMA. Sene seems pretty non-notable to me. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a duplicated article, and no useful rationale for merge has been given by any of the people supporting that outcome - this offers no new information that is not already included in Golok, and is not a likely search term. ~ mazca ^talk 10:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British army issue golok[edit]

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

Copies text directly from Golok, and it doesn't make sense to use this particular article title as a redirect to Golok, either. Spring Rubber (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Golok.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Golok. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom. bahamut0013^words _deeds 04:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason to merge (or even redirect) to Golok. This specific article doesn't bring forward anything different from the main article. McMarcoP (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't add anything new that Golok doesn't cover. Although I guess if one wanted to get really detailed some of the information could be merged. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Energy Power[edit]

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

This article is a POV fork from energy superpower, it also contains original research, including the name of the article which is a neologism. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only what the nom said, but if this was notable to be included here, there should be adequate description as to what the difference between this and Energy superpower is. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself is getting confused between superpowers and Great Powers; besides what was already said, this is good evidence of poor-quality original research. Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icewedge (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Millionaires[edit]

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

See prior discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millionaires (band). Cirt (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Meets criterion 10 of WP:BAND: 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 notable compilation album, etc.. They have performed two theme songs, for the MTV programs Teen Cribs and A Double Shot at Love. They also co-headlined a tour and headlined a few others. This version of the article is different from the one that was deleted earlier this year, could you also give a rationale to delete? talking birds 22:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at the article for independent reliable secondary sources, only saw one. Thought it merited at the very least having a discussion. Perhaps you could provide some independent reliable secondary sources to back up the statements you just made in your comment? Cirt (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have a MTV artist profile which backs up the A Double Shot at Love theme song claim [25] but it isn't independent, then. I found this [26] but it's just MTV's Buzzworthy blog, not independent or even a good source I suppose. This is about co-headling a tour with Breathe Carolina, but it isn't extensive coverage. Can't really find anything outside their myspace blog to back up the headlining tour claims, though. One criteria is enough to meet WP:BAND, though, and they do meet #10. talking birds 00:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet appear to fail WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Good point. ~~Weak Keep~~ nonetheless. talking birds 02:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Millionaires (band). Have some sources: Billboard/Allmusic, Metromix, Washington Post, Philadelphia Weekly, MTV.com, New York Times. Oh, and here's a real amusing one: Alternative Press declaring that they won't write anything about them...and yet writing about them. And SPIN named their EP the fifth-worst-titled album of 2009. Ah, this band is endless entertainment... Chubbles (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Chubbles. They also toured on Warped Tour 2009.[27] dissolve ^talk 07:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles' sources, as they now do appear to pass WP:NOTE. talking birds 00:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per User:Chubbles. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superwoman Complex[edit]

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

I nominate this article for deletion on the grounds it is extremely biased and the whole concept relies solely on one article written by a barely notable journalist. Freikorp (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for the time being. News archives show a fairly large number of hits for the phrase, including widely reported uses by Dr Joyce Brothers and Fran Drescher; but it isn't clear that they're talking about the same thing as this article, or that the meaning is any more than trivial or tautological. I am not sure that the sources found could be used to create a coherent explanation of a single phenomenon here, but I'm open to the possibility. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete silly, neologistic phrase for journos to hang pieces on. No currency in sociology/psychology/popular discourse that I can see. Declan Clam (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-Notable and silly fringe theory attacking feminism from a soapbox. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cardfather[edit]

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

The article makes several claims to notability but fails to provide sources. I've only been able to locate the one from DailyCandy, an email newsletter. Conclude that he fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Favonian (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears with other notable performers, Angela Funovits, Lee Asher, as a spokesperson for magic company Ellusionist's line of playing cards, Arcane Cards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.52.217 (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is referenced to journals about musicians although the material is not online. Without examination of the references in the article, the article should not be under consideration for deletion. - Whpq (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G3) by tedder (talk · contribs). –Katerenka ^☆ 05:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Club Mixes[edit]

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

i cannot find anything about this release with help of google, discogs or amazon. i've also never heard of this release before. there are no references that show the existence of this release - SMESH (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Nonexistant album, doesn't register on Allmusic, Amazon, etc. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, considering that this album isn't even listed on the artist/band's own web site. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Jensen[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable. His only activity of notability is being a participant in the reality show The Ultimate Fighter: Heavyweights which he lost in the first round. Justastud15 (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jensen has had only a handful of MMA matches, none for a major organization and few against an opponent of notability. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't see where he's competed at a notable level. Lara 21:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. --aktsu ^(t / c) 07:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above DRosin (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For, I think, fairly obvious reasons. Black Kite 19:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International matzo bri cookoff[edit]

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

Article about a cookoff with no assertion of notability nor reliable sources. Given that the the list of winners seem to have mostly the same last name I'm not convinced that it's anything other than a private family thing. While that's all well and good that doesn't fulfill Wikipedia's notability standards. TheLetterM (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can for this is the article. Possible hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure WP:OR, yes, probably one of those family things. Non-notable, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 09:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep in some form, that is; whether and where to it should be moved or merged is not clear from this discussion and remains an editorial decision to be taken. But there's consensus that the general subject of flower pots (however spelled) is a fit subject for an encyclopedia article. Sandstein 17:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plantpot[edit]

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

I am proposing we delete this page as it is a non-term. I have never seen the term written without a space and is hence a non-specific adjective attached to a noun. The term is hence nonsearchable. Not much shows up on google either. Given this, the mere existence of the page's name is in some way Original Research. Some material could be salvaged but it needn't be at this article. A possible alternative is a new article at pot plant, which is currently a redirect to houseplant (although I don't view them as synonymous). Anyway, let's see what y'all think. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I get enough Google Book returns to convince me that this article is okay except the name. I always heard these called "flower pots", but to increase the generality I propose moving to ~~"plant container"~~ or something like that. Abductive (reasoning) 16:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Basically, I agree with Abductive. The subject matter is encyclopedic, but the page name is odd. (There is plenty more that could be added, including aesthetics and agricultural aspects.) Currently, "flower pot" redirects to this page, and one option would be to simply turn the redirect around. Given that non-flowering and non-ornamental plants (such as food plants) are also grown in containers, I would prefer, instead, renaming the page as "plant container" and redirecting both "flower pot" and "plantpot" to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that - I notice that Flower pot was moved to plantpot last year. Flowerpot is definitely a notable term, but is it too narrow? A more inclusive term would be better, but what? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. To what, I'm not certain. I'd say that the simple 'pot' is acceptable, the primary use of the term will be the horticultural. For clarity and the wider public use, 'flower pot' may be the best term. Plant containers are not always pots. Imc (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure that main use is horticultural - take a look at Pottery. Still scratching my head on this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "pot" would be too general. I'm increasingly leaning towards "plant container" over "flower pot" to include containers for non-flowering plants. As for potential notability once properly revised, it's at least somewhat useful to take a look at Hanging Gardens of Babylon and Hydroponics. Not that those are perfect examples, but they give some sense of what a page like this one could come to include. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No matter what name you move it to, it'll be an unreferenced dictionary entry. Are there really reliable sources that describe the usage, construction, history, and aesthetics of plant containers? If consensus is to move, I'd also probably pick plant container. Rkitko ^(talk) 21:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are reliable accounts of plant containers. After all, they have to be made, there is a substantial market for them and there are entire industries devoted to providing them. Depending on country/region, there are local standards for their sizes shapes et.c.. Long time since I studied horticulture though, so I won't promise to dig up references for these. Imc (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update - oh crud, look what I found --> Container garden. This is where material should be moved. Question is, merge and delete or merge and redirect? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect would avoid this discussion again in a few years when the article is re-created.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A merge to Container garden makes sense for now, as both articles are pretty short (both are also poorly referenced, but given the 3 zillion garden books published, I'm sure that is fixable). I could imagine at some point splitting out a larger article just on the pots (especially from an artistic point of view), just as we have both cornice and architecture, but I'm not too sure whether that will make sense and it seems like a lot of articles for a small amount of text right now. (If you want more to think about, browse through "what links here" which shows a pretty wide variety of aspects to the topic). Kingdon (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with this merge idea. Container gardens are generally outdoors and about gardening, and the containers are much more large and varied in their construction. Flowerpots are objects with a long history of their own. Abductive (reasoning) 04:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Abductive that a merge into Container garden would be problematic. I still prefer "plant container". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The names of flowerpots from the articles on other wikis are amusing to me. Pod-bleunioù, Blumentopf, Florpoto, Pot de fleurs, Bloempot, Kukkaruukku and Kruka are my favs. Also, none redirect to a container garden artcle. Abductive (reasoning) 04:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to flowerpot. In British English, at least, "flowerpot" is the common name for this, whether it contains a flowering plant or not (I was brought up watching "Bill and Ben the flowerpot men" not "Bill and Ben the plantpot men"). If this is different in other varieties of English then the grandfather clause of WP:ENGVAR needs to be invoked. A merge to container garden would be wrong because flowerpots are used in many other contexts, for example for houseplants, in plant nurseries and as an addition to normal gardens. Notability isn't an issue, with these books being about the subject, and these academic papers:[28][29][30]. They can also be a health hazard.[31] Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, virtually all the article is relevant to flowerpot anyway. Shall we just close this and move it back to flowerpot then? Or let it run for five days?Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they are flower pots in British and American English, who calls them Plantpots? ~~Anyway, since there have been no votes for delete, Casliber can withdraw this nomination.~~ Actually, one vote, oh well. Abductive (reasoning) 20:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator appears to be an Aussie it looks like another variety of English can be excluded. Do any speakers of Indian English, Canadian English, Irish English, South African English or any other of the myriad varieties want to speak up in favo(u)r of "plantpot"? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plus move to flowerpot; this is clearly a significant topic (enough so that we could bend notability guidelines if necessary) that should be covered by an encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to flowerpot.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move as mentioned. The name is indeed flower pot, even in cases where it may seem illogical. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move back to flowerpot (or flower pot). It's a notable topic (there are whole books on it: Keeling 2004, ISBN 9781570762734; Needham, 1998, ISBN 9781579900656), but let's use a word people actually use for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, flowerpot or flower pot is fine, and charmingly quaint. Flower pot with the space is about twice as common in all Google searches. Abductive (reasoning) 06:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier, I argued for "plant container", but after reading the subsequent comments, I now agree that a rename to "Flower pot" (two words) is the best solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though I can imagine an article about this covering various interesting and encyclopedic aspects—history, manufacturing, recycling, economics—unlike Abductive above I have not been able to find evidence that reliable information exists. It is all very well to observe that flower pots have a history, but if no-one has written a history of flower pots then nor must we. Hesperian 23:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Plenty of people have written books about flower pots, as you will see if you follow my and David Eppstein's links above. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: as the article name doesn't seem satisfactory, a move can be done to pot (plants). This thus basically keeps the name to pot (which will give satisfactory hits on the search engine) yet is differs itself from the pot article because of the added (plant).

KVDP (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to keep changing my mind with successive comments by other editors, but I like that suggestion of "Pot (plants)" even better than "Flower pot". In any case, keep and rename. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Planter (moving the dab page there to Planter (disambiguation) 70.29.209.91 (talk) 07:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fight[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Their albums Home Is Where The Hate Is and Nothing new since Rock 'n' Roll are part of this nomination. The previous AFD is here. Joe Chill (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The ep (Home Is...) on Fat Wreck Chords suggests they're on their way. The short review for Nothing New on allmusic is a bit more. The UGO review looks close but I'm not convinced it's a reliable source. Even with that it's not quite there. I've found nothing else. Close but not there yet. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't I see the other coverage on allmusic, was it there then? There now. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:30, 29 October 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, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage includes a Staff review from Punknews.org, a review from redefine, details of their US tour, an Aversion review of Nothing New Since Rock 'n' Roll, Allmusic review of Nothing New, Allmusic review of Home is....--Michig (talk) 08:24, 17 October 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 13:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They meet criterion 5 of WP:BAND. As shown here they released two albums on Fat Wreck Chords, an indie label that has been around for nearly 20 years with a roster that includes NOFX, Less Than Jake, and Rise Against to name a few. Plus they have had non-trivial coverage on MTV, they've completed an extensive tour of the US which is not their country of origin (though admittedly not covered by a WP:RS). Two of their albums are also up for AfD, Home Is Where the Hate Is and Nothing new since Rock 'n' Roll, they should be merged into this article. J04n(talk page) 01:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy to User:Fergananim/Fathadh mac Aonghus. so that it can be re-created if further claims to notability can be found Black Kite 11:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fathadh mac Aonghus[edit]

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

Notability is barely asserted, and the main hint of an assertion of notability is though descendants. Notability is not inherited. Furthermore, the article itself states "he would be unremarkable were he not the purported ancestor to the Ó Fathaigh/Fahy family" but the linked town simply mentions that Fahy can be a surname as well. No prejudice against the fact that the name is red-linked; we are building an encyclopedia here, but when the assertion is that he is purported to be the ancestor of a red-linked family name, and there is no other claim to notability...I don't think our notability guidelines are being met. Frank | talk 13:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the point, he is purported, but why so? It seems there were political reasons to make genealogical affiliations between his people and the Ui Maine. What has been proposed by scholars since the 19th century is that Fathadh was significant enough to create a relationship between him and a notable dynast of Ui Maine. This hinges on expansion and assimilation between Gaelic polities. All I ask is to be given some time to outline all the ramifications, including any and all further bio details I can find. Fergananim (talk)

Merge if the Ó Fathaigh/Fahy comes up, else Userfy: Fergananim, from the other AfDs I feel what you are doing is a wonderful job. However there would probably be less blocks and problems if you work on the articles in your userspace, and then move them to the mainspace when all the network is ready. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as totally irrelevant. The article itself says it all: "He would be unremarkable were he not the purported ancestor to the Ó Fathaigh/Fahy family". Indeed. McMarcoP (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either expand and keep or merge with a new article on the Uí Fathaigh (or ? Uí Fathaidh). Cavila (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and (potentially) redirect/userfy depending on the circumstances surrounding the other red-links. Article itself states that even the annals don't really have much info on him and that his claim to fame is a possible link to someone else. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW close--clearly non-notable--if it were a bio, it would be CSD A7 DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biophysicopsychoemotiointellectosociosexospirito[edit]

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

non-notable neologism (possibly WP:MADEUP), no occurence in the web (besides wikipedia-related), I could not verify the existence of the sources (and the article seems to have been deleted via prod before) Antipastor (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, if not a hoax. Dr. Narag's books do not even appear in WorldCat. EALacey (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism, supercalifragilisticexpialidociously silly. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously not notable if it isn't actually a hoax. Adambro (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am copying the article author's opinion from the article talk page (admittedly his talk page might have been confusing with previous prod/csd tags, I also notified him): "Dear Wikipedia The article Ive wrote is based from books about the composition of man it is known as the biophysicopsychoemotiointellectosociosexospirito which is a combination of Biophysical psychoemotional, intellectual, social, sexual and spiritual aspect of man. It is written by a notable Doctor in our country and qouted by a lot of great speakers. I hope you will help me to improve my first contribution. Thank you and God bless" Antipastor (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am also nominating the following related pages because these are what appears to be the beginning of a WP:Walled garden about a non-notable (or possibly non-existent) person. :

Delete too as not meeting notability or verifiability guidelines (links in refs appear broken/incorrect too). Antipastor (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Ihcoyc,. Toddst1 (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are sources, but they appear to be 1) Wikipedia articles, or 2) self-published. I'm AGFing that this is a good faith attempt at an article, but it might be better as a userfied draft until better sources can be located. Delete, otherwise. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEO. Warrah (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. But the first part of it.. "Biophysicopsychoemotiointellecto".. might get used in a Filipino remake of The Sound of Music... "even though the outcome of it was double-u p snow" Mandsford (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That's a plain hoax by someone with too much time on his hands. User234 (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stuff like this degrades Wikipedia. Orthorhombic (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: too far from being supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Alexius08 (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these two articles as per WP:NEO and WP:NN respectively. E Wing (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw it on new pages and it looked dodgy then... I'll ask the creator about this "doctor" kiwiteen123 (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Air Training Corps squadrons#East Cheshire & South Manchester. Black Kite 19:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1804 Squadron ATC[edit]

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

Cadet units are not notable in their own right, it has been proded and changed to redirect in the past but it has been recreated. MilborneOne (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. There is always a possiblility that an individual ATC squadron could be notable but nothing suggests this is the case here. Adambro (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it was the oldest in the UK or even England, it might be notable, but there is nothing notable about this. Make redirect and protect the redirect. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was AfD is probably not the right forum for this. I have closed it as merge to Thai pepper so that further discussion can take place as to whether these actually are the same thing. If it can be proved that they're not, then no merge need take place. Black Kite 19:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siling labuyo[edit]

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

The article was originally created as a redirect by User:Exec8 as a redirect to Thai pepper and nothing else. User:Lambanog expanded the article. Literally speaking, (as what the Siling labuyo lead wants to say), siling labuyo is Filipino term for Thai pepper. They belong to the same specie (both are Capsicum frutescens, and the C. frutescens article says that they are only one). Bird's eye chilies link on the lead was modified so it is ambiguous that it points to Thai pepper. Thai pepper common names section claims that siling labuyo is the Filipino term for the chili.

According to Lambanog, it is justifiable to create a separate article featuring Siling labuyo in Wikipedia because it is uncertain to taxonomist whether labuyo and Thai pepper (again, the union--they are translations of each other.) is under C. frutescens or not, but he did not cite any sources (C. frutescens article did not mention any disagreements). Finally, paraphrasing the last statement in the talk page: is that it is justifiable to create siling labuyo page because the Thai pepper article is a mess.

I add this to AFD because former PROD nomination was deleted by Lambanog without addressing any concerns.

If ever this article won't deleted, I suggest merging this to Thai pepper, especially that Siling labuyo is Filipino term (not Filipino version nor variant) of it. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 12:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been spending a lot of timing looking up websites and references trying to pin down siling labuyo and it just keeps getting murkier instead of clearer. My interest in this subject has come about because if you walk into a Filipino supermarket there are now generally two kinds of bird's eye chili pepper one can find. One is labeled as native to the Philippines, another is from Taiwan. Both are labeled as siling labuyo yet they appear different and have different heat intensities. From the perspective of the consumer or the casual reader looking up the subject on Wikipedia I would say they are different products. Looking at the "Thai pepper" article one does not get a quick sense under what heading the native variety falls under. Maybe it's the bird's eye cultivar (portmanteau of "cultivated" and "variety" according to that link) but the name of siling labuyo is literally "wild chili" also called locally as chileng bundok (mountain chili). It's not a long time domesticated variety unlike what describing it as a cultivar suggests under "Thai pepper". I also notice there is an independent article on the African birdseye chili pepper a.k.a. peri-peri and also the pequin. They all look alike and bear some similarities. Why is it the case they have their own separate articles but the siling labuyo shouldn't? This entire field dealing with chilies is fuzzy.

The very classification of capsicum frutescens has come under attack. This article on answers.com explains it. To quote from it:

• Capsicum annuum var. annuum (first mentioned by Linnaeus, 1753). The flowers with white corollas and purple anthers are solitary at each node (occasionally two or more). The variform fruit usually has firm flesh and straw-colored seeds. A multitude of pungent and nonpungent cultivars of this Mesoamerican domesticate now dominate the worldwide commercial pepper market. A relationship between C. annuum, C. chinense, and C. frutescens has caused the three to be known as the C. annuum complex. This relationship creates a taxonomic predicament. Some authors still recognize the first two as distinct but tend to have difficulty determining where C. frutescens fits into the picture, if indeed it is a separate species. The best-known cultivars are bell, cayenne, jalapeño, serrano, pimento, poblano, New Mexican chile/Anaheim, and cherry.

• Capsicum frutescens (first mentioned by Linnaeus, 1753). Some authors no longer consider this semi-wild species of Capsicum to be sustainable. It has two or more small white to greenish white flowers with purple anthers at each node and was once considered to be a member of the C. annuum complex, which includes three white-flowered species thought to have a mutual ancestor—C. chinense, C. frutescens, and C. annuum. The small fruit with cream-colored seed is always erect, never sweet, and often two or more may occur at each node. The tabasco pepper, limited to the Western Hemisphere, is the only variety of this species known to have been cultivated commercially. Easily transported by birds, the tiny varieties of wild C. frutescens can be found throughout the world's tropical pepper belt. The cultivated varieties are closely controlled by the McIlhenny Company of New Iberia, Louisiana. The cultivars are tabasco, greenleaf tabasco, and select.

There is a lot of discrepancy and not as much unanimity on the topic as one would expect. Perhaps because of the capsicum annuum complex dilemma, I've also seen the siling labuyo classified as from capsicum chinense like here. Considering the siling labuyo is known for being a very hot pepper this actually makes the most sense since all the hotter peppers known belong to capsicum chinense.

Because of the vagueness and lack of clarity, just about the safest thing one can say from what I've seen so far is that the siling labuyo is a small bird's eye chili pepper found in the Philippines. Perhaps those pushing for the deletion should state their case for why siling labuyo and "Thai pepper" are one and the same. My sense is since they both presumably belong to capsicum frutescens and are in the same general part of the world it's just automatically assumed. I think more is required. In any event the "Thai pepper" page is woefully inadequate and doesn't seem to be an all encompassing article. There are no sources referenced in that article. Those asking for the deletion or merging of this article would do better to improve either article. If the two topics should be merged at a later date I would prefer it be done under a more general "bird's eye chili" heading. As it is one could argue that "Thai pepper" should be merged under "Siling labuyo" as much as the other way around---if they really are the same thing and I don't see any evidence presented showing that.

By the way I have been involved in a bit of an editing dispute with JL 09 and Eaglestorm recently that is still in the process of being arbitrated. I would like to assume good faith on their part but under the circumstances their eagerness to get this article deleted or merged is something I cannot help but note. I also notice just now in the above that JL 09 states "I add this to AFD because former PROD nomination was deleted by Lambanog without addressing any concerns." This is false. I added a detailed note on the talk page. [32] Edited 1 time. Lambanog (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Remember that you cannot provide new theories in Wikipedia like that they stand to be different because people assumed that they are different, hence it is justifiable to profound new things here other than stated facts in taxonomy (to quote, "I think more is required."). If the Thai article has no sources and inadequate, then, edit it. This answers.com link has no mentioning that Thai pepper and siling labuyo aren't different. This article on answers.com about Thai chili/pepper says that birds chilies are dried form of Thai pepper. This website is not a reliable source to say.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 08:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Then how about this one: Peppers of the World: An Identification Guide. Scroll down near to the bottom to find and read page 63. Lambanog (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lambanog, page 63 is under copyright protection of Google.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 05:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not follow. The page is available for preview. If you are on a slow connection wait a bit and it should load. Try scrolling down to the very bottom and maybe those pages will load first. Lambanog (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 08:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 08:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This one is a tough one, but what matters is verifiability, it appears that the article's subject has enough sources to meet WP:NN, however unless we can find a reliable souces stating that the two are different, I can't help but think of merging all articles under that taxonomy into a single article, with each variant given their own article, or section (at the very least). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough results from Google News search, Google Book search, and regular Google search to show this name is widely used. If you have problem with the content, then you discuss that on the talk page, and work it out there. Verifiability not truth, is the Wikipedia rule. Dream Focus 16:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least clear reading and more research is needed to see that siling labuyo and Thai pepper are just translations of one another. If there is a dispute on taxonomy if "both" "peppers" are under frutescens or not, then we do not have the right to settle it down because Wikipedia is only an encyclopedia, not a science-dispute-settlers. The stand is that siling labuyo and Thai pepper still the same type of chili, and if there is a dispute on classifying "each" pepper whether it is on chinense or frutescens (and I guess it came from the scientific world), we can do nothing but to accept that there is really a dispute on classification, and that we cannot settle which one is true and not. As of now, what Lambanog and I see on the internet is a clear show that there is a "dispute" on classifying "them". Like what I am saying, leave it to the scientist and restore siling labuyo as a redirect as it was before.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 - as nearly every university team in the UK would be. Black Kite 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School of Slavonic and East European Studies A.F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur football team - plays outside national pyramid in intra-university competitions. Dancarney (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of London Union organised leagues contain around 100 football teams (all of which associated with the amateur football alliance and their respective institutions), with over a thousand people involved in matches that take place twice a week. As these are student teams they should not be part of the national pyramid as this has caused problems for example when team Bath competed in the lower devisions. SSEES has existed for 94 years and has had a football team for many of those years. I would suggest the article should be improved, but it is merely a subjective opinion of Dancarney that the club is not important because it is not involved in the national pyramid. The article does need to be improved and needs to be given the chance to be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malanbo (talk • contribs) 11:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC) — Malanbo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Dancarney (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the club doesn't compete at a notable level. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable team. Giant Snowman 12:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although this may come as a surprise to college sports fans from the USA, university/college sport in the UK (other than the strange historical idiosyncracry of The Boat Race) is basically completely non-notable, not attracting paying customers or any significant coverage at all outside the university. Hell, I work at a university and our sports teams don't even get much coverage within tehe university -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above reasons. (Although I would like to point out to Chris that there is a Uni team that has been notable - Team Bath F.C., who, IIRC, made the FA Cup First Round in 2002 (before being thumped by Mansfield). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, re-phrase to "inter-university sport is basically completely non-notable". Team Bath were an oddity as they did not compete in matches against other unis but played in a league with "regular" football clubs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Teams that play in intra-university competitions are not notable. – Pee Jay 16:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than delete the article perhaps it should be merged with the article on the School of Slavonic and East European studies. As your views on the notability of football clubs seems to be based more on money than to do with sport, students do come and watch ULU matches. Thousands of people play football and other sports in the ULU leagues every year and for that reason the clubs are notable as are amateur sports clubs. Your views are all entirely subjective opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.83 (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - University teams aren't notable. Probably not even worth mentioning on the main School of Slavonic and East European Studies page Spiderone 08:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't they notable though? Back up your opinions. It's ridiculous to say that the team is not even worth mentioning on the main SSEES website and shows blatant bias. There are more than 50 students involved in SSEES AFC on a weekly basis. Why should you be able to decide what information is available to people on Wikipedia? As long as articles are written to the correct templates and standards, backing up the information they provide then surely the more information on wikipedia the better. Or is that no longer an aim here?

What does it matter if the team is "notable" or not? Surely the team is notable to those who participate in it and play against it. And besides, who are you people to try and dictate to other people what is "worthy" of publication? Surely SSEES AFC is relevant to those who include it in THEIR sporting framework, and that is enough for it to merit an entrance on Wikipedia. It's not like it is an offensive article advocating racism or some other ill. It is harmless and should be retained.

They must be notable otherwise Wikipedia will just become a collection of articles on pub teams and amateur footballers. If you can prove that this article passes WP:GNG by adding independent, reliable sources to it then it can pass regardless of any other rules. Spiderone 16:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear difference between a pub team and a club associated with a respected acedemic institute for over 90 years. I agree that the article should be improved to meet the wikipedia standards and that should be what is being discussed here not the subjective views on notability. Also I don't see what is wrong about having information about amateur teams as long as the articles meet the standards and have enough referencing, then information about amatuer sports is still just as valid as about professional sports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.108.50 (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree but this article doesn't have enough referencing to justify inclusion and that's why it's up for AfD. Spiderone 17:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be given more time for those editing it to improve the article in which case if it is not improved enough it should be deleted or reduced and merged with the main SSEES article. Which is fair enough as it's a question of quality not subjective opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.83 (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.83 (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Comment - Pretty much every reasonable sized academic department in any of the older British Universities will have a football team that goes back decades. However, they probably all play in intra-university competitions and are no more notable than an established pub or Sunday league team. Dancarney (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to its history as an independent institution and the specialist nature of the subjects taught there, SSEES isn't just like another university department, especially since it competes against other universities not other departments. In any case ULU is an inter university league not an intra university league, writing about a departmental team that competed against other departments would certainly be less notable but if they could reference their article sufficiently and it met the wikipedia standards I would certainly not complain about a team that competed in an intra university league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.83 (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that it was once an independant institution is irrelevant, as even they would not normally qualify for an article. Personally I don't care whether a team is professional or amateur (I'm in a minority though). But the question is whether sources independent of the league and university give it noteworthy coverage. And as far as I can tell, the answer is no. WFCforLife (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to School of Slavonic and East European Studies. The general rule of thumb for football team notability is having played in a national cup competition (such as the FA Vase). This team fails that criteria, and I can't find any evidence of notability elsewhere - Google hits for this team are pretty unremarkable. They may be worthy of a mention on the SSEES article, but not notable enough for one of its own. Bettia (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Superficially impressive if mostly unsourced, but reading more closely nothing that approaches WP:MUSIC is here - one section admits that his group performed at "casinos and corporate functions" and being a backing musician for a blue-linked performer who appears barely notable themselves doesn't clear the bar either. Black Kite 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terry hoknes[edit]

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

No links to establish notablity Random Time 10:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the assessment. A search on both the article name, as well as on the related band "Orange Lucy" returns nothing but myspace, youtube and similar websites which do not count as reliable sources. Furthermore the article is full of claims they inspired other bands (WP:OPINION), includes a lot of red links to apparently not notable artists, and the few names that do yield a link are either wrongly linked, or not related to the notability of the subject. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fairly straghtforwardly fails WP:WEB Black Kite 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shredaholic[edit]

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

A article about website without any assertions of notability. Provides no sources or references - and I can't find any. Not mentioned in any books or news. Only 340 google hits gives a additional clue that this site is hardly notable. GreyCat (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No assertion of notability and no references. Looking at the pages that link to this article, Francesco Fareri looks like another potential candidate for deletion. Adambro (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mercy episodes[edit]

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

Delete or Merge per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to a Sandbox. The page was not done being constructed and still needs to be revised to meet these guidlines. -- Fireheart14 (talk) - 05:15, 23 October 2009 (EST)

Sources and etc. added. I believe the article meets notability guidelines now. (If I am wrong, please tell me). So, I'd go with Keep -- Fireheart14 (talk) - 05:44, 23 October 2009 (EST)

Keep Looks good now. Tabercil (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever it looked like when it was first nominated, it fits the format that we have for episode lists. For those who don't think Wikipedia should have a list of TV episodes, I can only say that you shoulda seen it when I first got here. I very much oppose articles about individual episodes of a television show, but a summary of the story line of fiction brought to millions of viewers? No problem. Mandsford (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep currently apppropriate. Better to do it here than in the main article. And I agree with Mandsford that individual articles about episodes except very selectively are not a good idea. Even when they can be technically justified by the GNG, they are clearer and better when combined--and easier to write, since for most types of shows they depend on each other.) DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and defaulting to keep, though I note the concerns of Smerdis of Tlön regarding the writing style of the article. In terms of "vote count" I am seeing 2-2 (it is unclear if the nominator Ged UK is arguing for deletion, but the statement makes it look like an office job rather than a call for deletion), and I need to evaluate the arguments somewhat. DustFormsWords' argument about the software being a run-of-the-mill product, with no assertion of notability does not cover the awards the product has received, and which Joe Chill's link appears to confirm. The lack of coverage noted by Smerdis of Tlön also appears to be somewhat due to the incorrect spelling ("ProjektronBCS" rather than "Projektron BCS"), as noted by Chris Johnson. Since independent coverage on the topic has been presented, which refutes part of the deletion arguments, I cannot read a consensus to delete here, but I cannot rule out this being revisited in the future. I will also move the article so that the title reflects the sources covering it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProjektronBCS[edit]

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

Speedy earlier declined as software. Article then PRODded, which was contested via the talk page (and a hangon tag). Thus bringing to AfD for decision. Ged UK 07:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reference - The comment below by BlindzeroMUC is the objection to the delete that appears on the article's talk page; I'm copying it in good faith. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I dont get this: If I want to complete the page "List_of_project_management_software" and put this software in there, the entry will be deleted, if no article is behind. Now I put an article and that will be deleted? What sense does this make?Please have a look into "List_of_project_management_software". Then you should mark mostly all of the linked articles there! Regards. BlindzeroMUC (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete - the article does not assert that the software is notable. The fact that it appears as a red link on List of project management software does not mean that it deserves an article. The listing on the the list page should be delinked and ProjektronBCS should be deleted. The possible existence of reliable sources (which as yet don't appear in the article) would create a presumption of notability which would then be rebutted by the arguments made at WP:MILL. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not notable - There are 102 entries in List_of_project_management_software. Maybe Projektron BCS is not well-known in the US, but it is one of the better known solutions in the market and definitely much much more important to project management professionals then most of the other solutions on that list. Also for general technologies Projektron BCS is really on of the leading solutions as it was 100%webbased already in 2001, where most of the named solutions where not existing at all.
As realiable sources I added the BARC study, which is completely independent and where Projektron BCS was analysed as well.
I also think it is notable if a software got some awards of independent media, fairs and government.
BlindzeroMUC (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I proposed this for deletion. Google News Archive search draws a blank on this article. More importantly, this isn't really an article; almost all of the text is devoted to extolling its virtues --- The software covers multi-project management and includes features for time recording and quality management, resource and contact management, and provides a ticket system. The user interface can be redefined in terms of its content and can be adapted to the customer’s corporate design using stylesheets and customised graphics. Additional attributes and comment lists can be configured for each object. A variety of interfaces helps to integrate Projektron BCS into an existing IT environment --- and that makes it unambiguous advertising as well, and Wikipedia is not a free host for advertising brochures or software spec sheets.

Note also that this article sprung full blown, complete with infoboxes and categories, from the get go. I suspect paid insertions when confronted with history like that. At minimum, it seems that there's an offsite project out there, or at least a body of lore, offering instructions on how to insert articles on minor office software packages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No strong opinion, but there are (mostly German language) sources on GNews/Books/Scholar if you put a space in the name: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I'd also suggest that those who want to keep this article should try to find sources for the awards this software has apparently won. --Chris Johnson (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This verifies awards. Joe Chill (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then Delete All Software. I cant follow the argument of "Ihcoyc", if so, then delete all articles behind the "List_of_project_management_software". BlindzeroMUC (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Given the contentious topic, the various comments about either the article's contents or this nomination for deletion being intended to push a particular political point of view may well be right, but they are immaterial to the AfD closure, which works by assessing consensus by weighing the comments submitted in the light of applicable policies and guidelines (notably WP:V and WP:N).

Since WP:V is a non-negotiable core policy, the article would need to be deleted if no references to reliable sources are provided to verify the existence of the subject. The references now provided in the article, which go to what seem to be websites not meeting WP:RS, fall short of this, as do the hand-waving references to WP:GHITS. But SmokeyJoe has provided a link to a published book, with an ISBN, that has the subject as its title. The concept of "Northern Artsakh" as a region is therefore verifiable and the article escapes mandatory deletion.

This leaves me to determine whether there is consensus that this source is not, in fact, reliable; or that there are other policy-based arguments for deletion. I find that this is not the case. The clearly on-topic source provided by SmokeyJoe is not addressed by any other contributor, and neither is the issue of notability or any other inclusion criterium. As I've already mentioned, the various opinions alleging political motivations, but providing no policy-based rationale for retention or deletion, are discounted. This leaves us with no consensus for or against inclusion, and accordingly the article is kept by default. Sandstein 16:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Artsakh[edit]

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

This page was kept on 29 July 2009 as no consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Artsakh). Since then no sources have been provided, the article still remains an original research. According to WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Moreover, the article creator repeatedly tried to remove the tags from the page without any explanation, which does not appear to be a good faith attempt at resolving the problems with this article: [33] [34] [35] (User:Wikistreet is the same person as User:Elegant's, he changed his name in the Russian wiki). It is also worth to note that this page was deleted from the Russian wikipedia, where it was originally created. Grandmaster 06:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the issue here appears to be not that this is not a verifiable term with an explainable and referenceable meaning, but that it is a politically charged term. That's not an AfD issue; it can be fixed by rewriting the article as "Northern Artsakh is a name used by [group X] to refer to [territory Y]. The area is also known as [A] by [group B]" and then going on to explain the history of the name's usage. See WP:POLE. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the term does not exist. The term Artsakh is used, and we have an article on Artsakh. But there's not a distinct entity called Northern Artsakh. Some Armenian sources may refer to northern part of Karabakh as northern Artsakh, but there was never a state or geographical or administrative region with that name. That's why the article creator is unable to site any sources to explain what Northern Artsakh means, what territory it covers, etc. If we have an article on Northern Artsakh, then why don't we have articles on southern, western and eastern Artsakhs? What is the point in having articles on north or south of a region, when we have a general article about it? I can understand when we have articles about North and South Korea, those are distinct political entities. But what is Northern Artsakh? A state? A geographic region? A province? We see no proof of any such meaning. Grandmaster 15:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a geographic region. Serouj (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it shown on any map published outside of Armenia by reliable third party geographers? Grandmaster 07:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be. It's enough that Research on Armenian Architecture uses it. Serouj (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, per WP:FRINGE. Grandmaster 05:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... There are 3,600 hits on Google. I don't know what you're talking about. Serouj (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And not a single reliable scholarly source. Google search means nothing. If you search google for any geographic region in combination with the words northern or southern, you will get plenty of hits. It does not mean that southern part of some region is a distinct geographic notion. Grandmaster 06:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Artsakh is a very distinct geographical region. Its borders are unmistakable when you view it on a topographic map. Furthermore, its Armenian history and the architectural monuments there are very distinct and difficult to oversee. An article on the region only follows. If I had the time, I would do much more research on this topic. But my not having the time shouldn't prevent the existence of this article! At some point, more information from sources not yet available on the Web can be added. Til that time, there are no grounds to delete the article. Serouj (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. In ru.wiki it was deleted because there were no reliable sources supporting existence of something like this. If there are any, then bring them up, otherwise lets clean Wikipedia from this junk. Zitterbewegung ^Talk 16:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Northern Artsakh - historical region. Cost noted that user Grandmaster is - Azeri, therefore this article not benefical for him and his country.--Elegant's (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historical and geographical term. There is a published book about it (http://www.eastview.com/russian/books/product.asp?sku=799338B&Karapetian/Samvel/Yerevan/Armenia/English/Caucasus/History/%28General%29/). For such a subject, a single book is sufficient evidence of notability. I think it was deleted at ru.wiki due to political sensitivities, but, here at least, we do not delete due to political sensitivities. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also see from google hits that term can is well used, and I count 104 incoming mainspace links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of words "southern Artsakh" is also used, does it mean we should have an article on it? I understand when we have an article on Northern Ireland, it is a distinct political entity. But what is Northern Artsakh? Of course, every region has north, south, east and west, and they are mentioned in literature sometimes. But should we have articles on each of those directions in every region? And why would Russian wikipedians delete pages due to political sensitivities? They just did not find the arguments presented by the creator in support of this page convincing. Grandmaster 19:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the status quo is very wrong. Note how not even Artsakh links to Northern Artsakh. The default procedure will be to merge into Artsakh#Geography until it can be established coherently and beyond doubt that there needs to be a standalone article. --dab (𒁳) 10:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Northern Artsakh refers to the historical area of Artsakh that is now a part of Azerbaijan. This differentiates the region from the Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh). There is an obvious usage of the term as well as books published about the region. Serouj (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. There is not historical evidence for this article, also relevant sources are missing. It is just made up by author.--NovaSkola (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Northern Artsakh" is a classification used by the Research on Armenian Architecture to signify that area of the Armenian plateau which lies east of the mountain range east of Lake Sevan. It's a clear historical geographic region of Armenia which is now in Azerbaijan. Please see the following map for reference Historical Structures of Northern Artsakh by Research on Armenian Architecture. Serouj (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the area is topologically delineated -- it is a distinct mountainous region adjacent to Armenia (the easternmost part of the Armenian plateau) after which the plains of Azerbaijan begin, descending to the Kura river basin. Serouj (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete There is no such a region like Northern Artsakh. Some locally published literature cannot be a reliable source. --Aynabend (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into the article on the province of Gardman. Northern Artsakh appears to be the geographical name used for the ancient province of Gardman. Robert Hewsen's book, Armenia: A Historical Atlas, has a page and map devoted to the kingdom of Gardman-Parisos (p. 119, map 95) and so it might be prudent to follow his example. I think it's also rather suspicious on how editors like Aynabend always appears during these votes relating to Armenia or Azerbaijan and then disappears off the radar for the next nomination to keep or delete something.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thjs is a political-based content dispute. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The following article provides important background on the dispute: [36]. Serouj (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samvel Karapetian is an Armenian ultra-nationalist. I provided quotes from the book by Thomas de Waal about Karapetian here: [37] Karapetian is the one who denies Azerbaijani people the right to live in Karabakh and Armenia. Looks like he is the only one who uses the term, and it is his recent invention. Karapetian is not a reliable source due to his strong bias in this subject. The question is, should we have articles on marginal terms that have no historical, geographical or political weight, and are used by 1 person? So far I see no evidence that there ever was a distinct political or geographic entity called Northern Artsakh. Grandmaster 07:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a scholar's studying and documenting Armenian architecture makes him an "Armenian ultra-nationalist". Serouj (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read his views in de Waal's book. He is a chauvinist denying the right of Azerbaijani people to live in Kelbajar and other occupied regions of Azerbaijan. He is described as ultra-nationalist by de Waal, not me. There are no other sources describing Northern Artsakh as a distinct region or entity. No mention of Northern Artsakh in historical literature, and no third party sources that use the term. I never denied that the term Artsakh existed, we have an article about it to which I also contributed, but there's no reason in having articles about its northern or southern parts, since no one can demonstrate that the northern part of the region was a political or geographic entity on its own. Grandmaster 09:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, character assassination won't get you very far in such arguments. Yes, Northern Artsakh is a geographic entity and it has meaning in Armenian history as well as in historical geography. Serouj (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then how come that it is not mentioned in any third party source? There are plenty of peer reviewed articles and books about Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan, but the region by the name of Northern Artsakh is never mentioned. Can you explain why? Grandmaster 05:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can speak so grandly as to say that nowhere else is the term Northern Artsakh used (I see 3,600 results on google). I haven't reviewed every book in publication to say. But clearly, the prominent Armenian architectural organization considers this to be a region of note, and indeed that makes sense to me. The region has had a significant Armenian population upto at least the Armenian Genocide and perhaps later, too. The map alluded to above (Historical Structures of Northern Artsakh and hosted on the website of the American University of Armenia) shows a rich Armenian cultural heritage on this land now called Northern Artsakh. Perhaps the region has not had enough study that it deserves (partly because today it is no longer accessible to Armenian researchers since the government of Azerbaijan wages a campaign of deliberate destruction of Armenian cultural heritage on its territory, specifically historically Armenian lands such as Northern Artsakh and most disturbingly at Julfa where the Azerbaijani government succeeded in completely annihilating 20,000 medieval Armenian cross-stones at the Armenian cemetery.)... So it is no wonder to me that you don't like to see mention of "Northern Artsakh" because that it implies talking about the Armenian history of a part of Azerbaijan... And the last thing the Azerbaijani government wants to here about are Christian churches, monasteries, cross-stones, and communities in Azerbaijan... Particularly not Armenian Christian churches, monasteries, cross-stones, and communities... Serouj (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to make this a political debate, while the questions that I ask are very simple and get no response. Of course, google search returns hits on northern, southern and eastern Artsakh. Search google for north of any region of the world, and you will get hits. The question is, what is Northern Artsakh? A northern part of the region of Artsakh? Why we should have an article on it, while we don't have a single reliable source about it? And why we need articles about northern, southern and eastern Artsakh, or just a northern Artsakh? I would understand if Northern Artsakh was something like North Korea or Northern Ireland, i.e. a political entity or a state. But it is not. It is not a distinct geographic region either. So what is Northern Artsakh, and what is the point of having an article about it? What information it contains that cannot be included in the general article about Artsakh? So far I haven't received any answer to this, only political speculations, which have nothing to do with the topic. The only source that you are able to cite is an NGO headed by an extreme Armenian nationalist, which is not a reliable third party source. Other than that, you have nothing. But the articles should be based on reliable third party sources, according to the rules. You are not able to provide a single third party source about Northern Artsakh. This article should be deleted or merged into that about Artsakh. Grandmaster 07:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained in numerous ways, Northern Artsakh is a historical and geographical region. It differentiates itself from the Republic of Artsakh in that it is under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan. It is also separated from the RoArtsakh by a mountain range. Compared to the rest of the adjacent Azerbaijani land, Northern Artsakh is a mountainous region and it has had a significant Armenian population and history which the prominent Armenian organization that preserves Armenian architectural monuments considers to be a distinct region of note. Your claim that Samvel Karapetyan is an "extreme Armenian nationalist" is unfounded and even if it were true, we are dealing with this scholar's research of Armenian architectural heritage in this territory. Northern Artsakh is the northeastern most portion of the Armenian plateau which happens to be in Azerbaijan today. Armenian historians distinctly call it "Northern Artsakh". What else would they call it? Serouj (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not used in scholarly literature. It is a fringe theory, promoted by 1 nationalistic author in Armenia. No reliable scholarly source uses the term of Northern Artsakh. There's the term Artsakh, on which we have an article. But northern part of the region cannot have a dedicated article, until we have enough of independent scholarly sources to establish that the concept actually exists and is not the invention of Karapetian. Grandmaster 05:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are going around in circles. Armenians refer to this territory as "Northern Artsakh." We can certainly have an article on it. Period. If you weren't so nationalistic yourself (an Azeri nationalist), what would you be doing here arguing such a minor point as to whether there should be an article called "Northern Artsakh" on Wikipedia? I think you'd be better off improving the Baku article rather than trying to delete an Armenian-related article. Serouj (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt to take it to a personal level to make this a political issue won't work. It is not me who describes Karapetian as ultra-nationalist, but the British journalist who talked to him. And attacking other editors is a violation of WP:NPA. You know the rules. WP:V holds that "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". It's been 3 months since the first nomination, during all this time no sources have been provided, and the article creator repeatedly tried to remove the tags without any explanation, which speaks for itself. This is about verifiability, which some try to turn into a political debate to avoid citing reliable sources. Grandmaster 06:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussionm, you are an Azeri ultra-nationalist. Period. Otherwise you wouldn't be here making this dubious nomination to delete this article. Research on Armenian Architecture is a reliable source. Serouj (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just original research without any references and thats why it was deleted on Russian-wiki, anyone can make up this kind of term and write a whole article about it. Neftchi (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a hoax type article. Made up term with no RS to back it up. Grandmaster 09:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the content dispute clearly has political basis. Historically the Northern Artsakh has an important geopolitical role in the South Caucasus. Gazifikator (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably true. Why don't you do us a favor and justify your point with reliable third party sources? Zitterbewegung ^Talk 03:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The concept does not exist. There has never been a geographical region or administrative unit like that. Chippolona (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Junk. No reliable sources.--Interfase (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - political-based content dispute. Once again. Sardur (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is getting ridiculous; it is attempt number two at deleting any reference to the historic region of Northern Artsakh motivated by nothing but politics. Hopefully, the nominations for deletion end with this. - Fedayee (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- nothing but politics, eh? How about the marginal fact that the article after all this time still fails to refer to a single WP:RS? --dab (𒁳) 11:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 19:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Malagurski[edit]

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

This article was deleted by myself after a previous AFD for poor sourcing and further sources have been provided to me. They are non-english, but that's not relevant and the provider had written a short summary to allow us to understand them. I'm satisfied that we should consider the sources but I don't think it is my right to set aside the previous AFD without allowing further discussion by the community. Therefore a procedural relisting to garner opinion on the sources provided. As the closing admin of the previous discussion I add no opinion on the outcome of this one. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources provided were:
"Pečat" magazine ("Печат" in Cyrillic, meaning "stamp") has an article about Mr. Malagurski and his film (not an interview) in their 66th edition. It's an entire page devoted to him and this is a secondary source. Please take a look at page 60

Article title: Косово: Можете ли да замислите? ("Kosovo: Can You Imagine?")

Article headline: Док су надобудни великани нашег филма, којима се свет дичи када пљују по свом народу, остали потпуно глуви, слепи и пријатно имуни на проглашење независности Косова, оно мало у њему још затурених Срба, један момак, наш, али из Канаде, отишао је на „ново“ Косово, и снимио на лицу места страдања Срба. ("While our respected film legends, whom the world respects only when they spit at their own people, remained deaf, blind and immune concerning Kosovo's declaration of independence, and the little Serbs left in it, one man, ours, but from Canada, went to the "new" Kosovo and filmed the Serb tragedy on the spot.")

"Novinar" novine ("Novinar" meaning "journalist", "novine" meaning "newspaper") has an article about Mr. Malagurski and his film (not an interview) and the entire article is devoted to him. Please take a look at this link

Article title: Šta se stvarno desilo? ("What really happened?")

Article headline: Nakon provokativnog filma o ljudskim pravima Srba i ostalih nealbanaca na Kosovu i Metohiji, osvojenih nagrada u Kanadi i Meksiku, te više prikazivanja filma na ruskoj televiziji, srpsko-kanadski režiser i producent Boris Malagurski iz Vankuvera, autor filma “Kosovo: Možete li zamisliti?”, ušao je u kompleksnu temu umešanosti zapada u unutrašnje poslove bivših jugoslovenskih republika, nekada i danas. ("After the provocative film on the human rights of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo, received awards in Canada and Mexico, as well as several screenings on Russian television, the Serbian-Canadian director and producer Boris Malagurski from Vancouver, author of the film "Kosovo: Can You Imagine?", is dealing with the complex topic of Western involvement in the internal affairs of former Yugoslav republics then and now.")

Delete - assuming that the article's claims are correct that (a) he is a filmmaker, (b) he has made the films listed, and (c) they won the awards listed, there is still no assertion in the article that he meets any of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. There's no evidence of any wide critical attention, his only actual award wins are for awards limited by either or both of a geographic region and an amateur (student) status, and his films are only arguably notable at best. (I'd strongly suggest his film Kosovo: Can You Imagine might also be an AfD candidate but if not maybe redirect Boris Malagurski to that article.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the reason why the article was deleted the first time is that there were no independent secondary sources - now we have two. Furthermore, as to the notability of the festivals where his films have been shown, just because people in the Western world don't know much about European cinema, doesn't mean that the Palic International Film Festival, which, in the year 2003, with its 10th edition, became a European Film Festival and a member of the European Coordination of Film Festivals, isn't notable, or that the East Sarajevo International Film Festival, which has had South East European premieres of world famous films, isn't notable either. On the contrary. Also, the Mexico International Film Festival, where he won the Silver Palm, is listed under "International Film and Video Festivals" on BritFilms.com - and NOT a student festival.

It seems to me like people want to delete this article because Mr. Malagurski won awards for his student films in the past. So what if he made student films in the past? Lots of people make student films and never make it in a single newspaper, TV channel or film festival. This guy is considered very notable in the Balkans, his work was shown on television, newspapers wrote about him and he was interviewed a bunch of times: *Literárky V Síti, Ministry for Kosovo of the Republic of Serbia, Novinar, Czech Free Press, Bas Biber, Radio Television Vojvodina, International Radio Serbia, Novine, The Diocese of Ras-Prizren and Kosovo and Metohija, Georgia Straight, Edmonton Journal, etc. etc. This guy definitely passes WP:CREATIVE, maybe not with flying colors, but enough to have a page on Wikipedia. Keep this page. --Bolonium (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are secondary sources that attest to the notability and importance of this person. Widely respected newspapers and magazines have written about him, and his films were shown on International Film Festivals (not just student ones), with some of them winning awards. He's not famous enough to be a household name, but is generally well known in the Balkans, particularly in Serbia and Bosnia. I know it's a bit confusing to see a guy this relatively young achieve so much, but that's no reason to delete the article. --Cinéma C 18:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it doesn't matter if there are sources - they're only attesting to the claims in the article. Those claims still don't meet the test at WP:CREATIVE, which means the presumption of notability arguably established through WP:N would in this case be rebutted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, actually sub guidelines like MUSIC, BIO, CREATIVE are subordinate to N so if it meets N that's enough even if the sub guideline isn't met. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:N offers guidelines for a presumption of notability. That presumption is rebuttable (both per policy and per the common sense reasons at WP:MILL). The secondary guidelines offer guidance as to when that presumption should be sustained. In this case we would expect a student whose films are accepted into student film festivals to receive coverage by and in relation to those festivals, without either the student of the festival itself being notable. That's why we have WP:CREATIVE, which he doesn't meet - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity/spam. A completely unnotable film student and an article which presents him like a Steven Spielberg. Note that none of the awards are notable, as previously established, they are all obscure student awards or just obscure. Urban XII (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The flooding with alleged and/or dubious/low quality sources in Serbian and not in English, most recently at a talk page, does not help Malagurski's cause. Bolonium and Cinéma C are accounts likely controlled by Malagurski or very close friends. I find it hilarious that he claims that the fact that he "has pages on both Serbian and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias" should be an argument to keep this article. He has created articles about himself in Serbian and Serbo-Croatian. It's called cross-wiki spamming and is hardly an argument to keep an article on a subject whose notability is questioned. I'm surprised that this issue is brought up again, the article was previously deleted after a thorough discussion where all claims to notability were examined, including his "awards" (presented in a deliberately misleading way) and the "sources". The last discussion was also flooded with the same low quality sources by Cinema C (referred to as a "bombardment [which] does not help the keep vote" by one editor). I see no new sources or information this time either, and I think it's time to close this discussion once and for all. PS: This log is particularly enlightening concerning Malagurski and Wikipedia. Urban XII (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see Boris for the tenth time repeats that "Also, the Mexico International Film Festival, where he won the Silver Palm, is listed under "International Film and Video Festivals" on BritFilms.com - and NOT a student festival". And again: Boris Malagurski was not "the" winner of the Silver Palm Award of the Rosarito festival in Mexico (not exactly Cannes). He was one of 76 winners, one of 14 in the category "Student Films".[38] I find it strange that he repeats again and again that the festival in Rosarito was "NOT a student festival", noone ever said it was. But the fact remains that he won a student award (his name isn't mentioned a single time on the website of the festival, only the title of his student film once in a list). As has been said before, his other awards are less notable than this one, some of them to the point that it's dubious they even exist. Urban XII (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment User:Urban XII has made edits to University of Regensburg (3 edits in July), SOCRATES programme (3 edits on Sept 18) Pope Benedict XVI‎ (6 edits on his early life, 3 on the article itself, all on the same day, Sept 18) and then immediately jumped into deleting this article for the first time, which has nothing to do with the previous areas of interest, on the same day, Sept 18. All the other edits were so minimal that this leads me to the conclusion that this Urban XII has some personal issues with the individual in the article (who apparently edited on Wikipedia and was blocked a few years ago), but this is not the place to discuss it. Evidence that this might be the case can be found on his talk page where, after I left him messages concerning the apparent POV pushing and personal issues he might have with the individual in the article, he replied "Grow up, Boris."[39], despite the fact that I'm not the user he keeps mentioning. Even here, he accuses me and User:Bolonium of being this individual... WP:RFCU is the appropriate place to make these claims, not here, and not on that article.
- "Vanity/spam" - untrue. You ignore secondary sources such as Pecat Magazine (page 60), Novinar newspaper and the fact that sources such as the Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija of the Republic of Serbia [40], Tanjug, Literárky V Síti[41], Czech Free Press[42], Biber[43] have all had articles about this individual, including radio interviews on CKUW-FM Radio 95.9, CKCU-FM Radio 93.1, Radio Belgrade 2, and even a report on him on Pink Television [44]
- "The flooding with [...] sources in Serbian and not in English" - so what if they're in Serbian and not in English? User:Spartaz already said "They are non-english, but that's not relevant". Urban XII claims "He has created articles about himself in Serbian and Serbo-Croatian." What evidence does he have for that? User:Bokim created all these articles, and his name is Boyan (as written on his user page). Before any more bombastic accusations are made, do a Checkuser, then come back with some proof. This way, anybody can make claims without supporting evidence and present them as facts... Besides, now it seems that three users - myself, Bolonium and Bokim are this individual according to you. So, everyone who disagrees with you on this matter, must be Malagurski or "under his control", eh?
- It is completely clear to anyone who objectively looks at the way you address this issue that you have a problem with this Malagurski individual. The fact that you don't consider him notable doesn't annul the fact that there are secondary sources that talk about this individual which makes him notable enough for Wikipedia. Maybe you don't like his politics or his movies that present Serbs in a better light than the mainstream media, but it doesn't matter here. It's not about personal feelings, it's about Wikipedia rules and guidelines. --Cinéma C 17:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As someone with no axe to grind in any political or nationalist disputes in the Balkans (but with enough reading knowledge of Serbian to make sense of the sources) I'd like to try to cut to the chase here. The awards that this subject has received or been nominated for don't appear to be enough to grant notability in themselves, so the issue here seems simply to be whether the Pečat and Novinar sources are enough to satisfy the general notability guideline, which asks for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Both sources have significant coverage of the subject's work, and nobody has suggested that the subject has any control over them, so it comes down to reliability. Pečat, although maybe partisan, appears to be as reliable as many sources that we accept here, with an editorial process[45], and can be accepted as a source for factual information about the subject and the content of his work, although not necessarily for any interpretation. Novinar, however, aims to publish all submissions[46] ("ima neodoljivu želju da sva vaša elektronska pisma i dopise u najkraćem mogućem roku, odmah publikuje"), so is in effect, a self-published source. It also doesn't publish a street address[47], which I would expect from any reliable source. We are left with just one source which is focused on the film Kosovo: Can You Imagine? rather than on its director, so I would suggest a redirect to Kosovo: Can You Imagine?. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Student films are not normally notable, and that they win prizes in a category for student films does not make them notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Quite a bit of reliable sources that discuss the guy in detail. Sure he made student films before, but his most recent ones aren't. Definite keep. --Nogrentain (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This user has made almost no edits, except some edits to the Kosovo talk page (Boris was more or less permanently banned for his activities on this article per [48]). I don't see any "reliable sources that discuss the guy in detail". I don't see any notable non-student awards. Urban XII (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's one and here's another one. Why are you ignoring these sources? User:Spartaz has said they're independent secondary sources that discuss this individual in detail. It's quite obvious you have something against Boris, but keep your personal feelings to yourself, because Boris' alleged previous activity on Wikipedia has no relevance to this discussion. --Cinéma C 06:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note: Boris' Wikipedia activity is not something that is "alleged", he self-identified as the great film maker Boris Malagurski[49]. He also previously wrote articles about himself, even after he was banned, that were deleted[50] Urban XII (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You didn't get my point. You could claim to be Boris and I'd find it hard to disprove it... Did you see this person actually create the account with your own eyes? Also, you said "He also previously wrote articles about himself" - another lie. Anybody who clicks your link will see he wrote about the surname Malagurski, the translator Marta Malagurski and the village of Mała Góra. I don't see a "Boris" in there. So please stop trolling here. --Cinéma C 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - One or two articles about his student project on obscure Serbian websites (one of whom which is a self-published source as pointed out above) do not indicate any notability. If he's such a notable film maker, it should be easy to find articles about him in mainstream English language sources. But of course, since he isn't notable at all, it's not so easy. While he can write about himself in some obscure Serbian Novinar website (and Wikipedia), he can't do it in The Times. Urban XII (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Pecat is not an obscure website, it is a popular magazine in Serbia. User:Spartaz repeatedly said the sources don't have to be in English. Just because someone is not well-known in the English speaking world, doesn't make him un-notable for Wikipedia. I'm sure you've never heard of 99.9% of the people that have an article here, and probably at least half don't have a single source in English. If you think notability has to be proven only with English language sources, provide a Wikipedia source for your claims, or stop trolling here. --Cinéma C 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this link: Global Research Centre. There are no reasons why this page should be deleted, considering the numerous references provided. Nogrentain (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how the link is significant. It's a text in Serbian at a trashy website, dealing with a film project and not Malagurski himself, and is very likely more or less a self-published source like so many of the other "sources". Note that this discussion has likely been the target of a meatpuppet attack (at the best) from accounts primarily obsessed with keeping this article (that was previously already deleted once) at any cost. Urban XII (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're all already well aware of your personal feelings towards this individual, but if you think "self-published" texts can be put up on the Global Research website, please write something to them and see if they'll publish it. I think you'll be negatively surprised. Also, the fact that you made so little edits right before you nominated this article for deletion the first time makes it quite evident that you don't have an objective approach to this issue and just don't want, at any cost, this individual to have an article on Wikipedia. Please provide sources for your claims of websites and references being notable enough, User:Spartaz has already confirmed that the Pecat and Novinar sources are secondary, something you keep dismissing without any evidence, except your personal opinion. Also, the creator of the Global Research Centre is Michel Chossudovsky, who has an article on Wikipedia, and is more than notable for his work. But apparently his work is trashy to you, and that's fine - you have a right to your opinion, but it's not worth anything as an argument on Wikipedia. This article should not be deleted. --Cinéma C 05:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, my view, is just that an opinion and its down to this discussion if its enough not me. admins dont decide what the conesnsue will be they interpret the consensus that already exists. But yui both would do well to knock off the personal stuff. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- globalresearch.ca is an obscure one-man website. I found this call for supporters to spam Internet forums particularly interesting: "We encourage our readers to cross-post and/or forward Global Research articles, submit them to internet discussion groups, send them to your friends on your e-mail lists, etc. This will help Global Research in its endeavors."[51] It seems they are publishing virtually anything on their website on a volunteer basis, and I continue to believe this is essentially a self-published source. Also, why is it so difficult to find any sources in mainstream English language media? I disagree that sources solely in Serbian should be sufficient to have a biography in the English language Wikipedia. Especially in a border-line case, at least some third party and quality English language sources are important to establish the notability of the subject. It should be easy to find at least an article or two in, say, The New York Times about an alleged big-time international film maker. Urban XII (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, the author of the article at globalresearch.ca, Srđan Marjanović (born 1988), seems to be a close collaborator of Malagurski, and globalresearch.ca is listed as the main sponsor of his student project[52] (archived) - note the very small amount ($ 1,965 in total donations) and the pretentious presentation of their "Bronze Sponsor", I think this says everything about how important Malagurski really is. Marjanović, Malagurski's friend and collaborator writes an article in Serbian about their small film project that is published at the website of the small one-man-organisation that has supported the project with a few hundred dollars (becoming "Bronze Sponsor"). As I said, self-published, and not under any circumstance third-party. Urban XII (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all, globalresearch.ca is not an obscure one-man website. It is an independent research and media group of progressive writers, scholars and activists.
  - Second of all, this individual is not a big-time international filmmaker and has not made it to large Western-based media articles. He has, however, had articles about him published in Serbian, Czech, German and Bosnian media sources (including Voice of Serbia, in English, albeit fairly short), and what makes him notable is the nature of the sources and depth of coverage (secondary sources such as Pecat and Novinar talk about Malagurski in detail, as well as many others), not the language of the sources.
  - Third of all, where did you get the fact that Srđan Marjanović, the person who wrote the article, was born in 1988? Are you suggesting that this is the same person as Srdjan Marjanović (born in 1988), who is a Swedish defender of Serbian descent who currently plays for Djurgårdens IF? That's the only person with that name who's date of birth I found on the internet. I doubt a Swedish football player writes articles for a German-based newspaper and there are many Srđan Marjanović's in the world (maybe it's the Srđan Marjanović who was President of the Bor Municipality, eh?). However, if you have some evidence of this and other absurd claims, please provide it before making these assumptions.
  - Fourth of all, Global Research is a sponsor of Malagurski's next film, as listed on the web-site of the film, which only makes him even more notable. Michel Chossudovsky, a well known author, who is very notable, has an organization that's supporting Malagurski's next film. Even though I have pointed this out before, I thank you for bringing it up again. All the best, --Cinéma C 06:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Research does not take responsibility for the accuracy of the articles it publishes, so cannot be accepted as a reliable source. See the disclaimer at the bottom of the page linked above: "... The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article." Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, the author is the one who wrote the Novinar source, which was listed quite a while ago along with the "Pecat" secondary source. Although I have a great respect for Global Research, that is not the source according to which this article should be kept. The main argument for keeping this article has already been addressed before. --Cinéma C 23:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems adequately sourced per WP:NOTABLE. The Pecar source in particular seems to meet all the necessary criteria. It is secondary, reliable, and removed from the subject. --Athenean (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One article in a Serbian magazine is not "significant coverage" in my book and does not meet Wikipedia:NOTABLE#General_notability_guideline. The article is deliberately written to look like it's well sourced and to portray him as extremely important, but it has already been pointed out that most of the sources are rather dubious (many of them self-published or equivalent) and the prizes obscure student awards (even if the person is revert-warring to remove this fact from the article). I think it's necessary that English language sources are provided, or else non-Serbian speakers have no way of verifying the notability of this person. (if no English sources can be found, I think that in itself demonstrates that this Canadian film maker is not notable) Urban XII (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bolonium UltraMagnus^speak 10:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For a couple reasons. One, the films produced are notable and the article is sourced. And two, I hate when I am looking for someone and they are not on Wikipedia. When you search for Boris Malagurski the second link is to Wikipedia, and that is where we all want Wikipedia to be(well, the first link is preferable). When you type the name in Google, Google finishes the entry with the subjects name, so people do search for Boris Malagurski. DD2K (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ligeia (band)[edit]

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

appears to be just a defunct myspace band. Is an allmusic entry sufficent testament to notability? precious few Ghits for 'Ligeia band'. Also nominating Bad News (Ligeia album) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)|cat=m}}[reply]

Keep The Allmusic profile confirms two releases on Ferret Records, which meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Chubbles. Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles. It seems that Ferret Records does fit the requirement of WP:MUSIC (“independent label with a history…”) Skarebo (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ECommerce company[edit]

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

I'm unsure if this is an article about a class of companies or a group of companies or whatever, but as of now this seems to be a sneaky way to insert links to the website of several companies. I don't know what's best to do with this one. Nominating to generate discussion. I'm leaning towards delete for now, but I'm also open to other suggestions. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, likely speedy delete: complete bollocks, and so irredeemably confused that no reasonable person could be expected to make sense of it:

Companies offering eCommerce services. eCommerce consists of electronic marketing, where the primary interface for dealing between the business and consumer is a computer. eCommerce services have to do with the sale of a product or a service over the internet. This is continually growing as the industry continues to pick up momentum. A company may consider themselves to be an eCommerce company and provide all, most, or every service desired by a company actively marketing online.
Typically in eCommerce, there is a certain flow to the transaction. Although there are processes immediately tied to that transaction, there are a wealth of other needs an eCommerce company has. To start off, there is the necessity of an eCommerce platform.....

Jesus wept. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a vehicle for link spam. -- Whpq (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. Shree Sundarkumar[edit]

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

Makes some pretty bold claims of importance, but I'm not really finding anything online to back them up. Parts are close paraphrase of his myspace, but considering it is almost certainly an auto-bio I wouldn't consider it to be a copy vio. ThaddeusB (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 16:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A great many extravagant and POV claims in the article, but no true third party claims to notability by our standards. Article was speedied 3 times as nonnotable autobio. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For sake of accuracy, it was actually speedied as a copyvio once each under Shree sundarkumar, Shreesundarkumar, and User:Shreesundarkumar. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt all the various versions as repeatedly recreated spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All versions were contributed by the same person. It would be far more appropriate to just block that person if they continue than to salt 4 different titles (one of which is their userpage). --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independant sources at all, which undermines any claims of notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 19:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of instruments in Wii Music[edit]

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

This is effectively a guide to instruments in the game, and violates WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Examples or family classifications can be outlined in the main article, but need not list all. MASEM (t) 04:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as game guide content with no other relevant information.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Game guide content. RobJ1981 (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to main article and Delete page. Thegreyanomaly (talk)
Keep Is a list of the main part of the game. Notable. I Smashed TALK! 14:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually notability is not inherited. While Wii Music itself is clarly notiable that does not make every indvidual aspect of the game notabile.--76.69.170.72 (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability that establishes these in-game items as more notable than a list of Mario power-ups or Final Fantasy healing items. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Muchness (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VGSCOPE ("lists of gameplay items") Marasmusine (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either Merge to a main article, as the way it is currently listed, it doesnt take up much space, OR Delete it because its not very notable. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bordering on game guide information, and the instruments section of Wii Music covers enough about the topic without there needing to be a separate article listing them. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the game article, if anything. It's silly as its own article, I mean, really now? Great effort seems to be taken around here to keep superfluous under-pages of smaller details, and this doesn't seem to be a particularly good reason to start, sorry. There are plenty of websites fully dedicated to this kind of stuff. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Practically no coverage, almost all unsourced and makes little claim on WP:N. Black Kite 19:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Pro Wrestling[edit]

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

Makes no claim to notability at all and lacks third party sources. Was previously deleted via a PROD under Impact Pro Wrestling (New Zealand) hence the AfD on this occasion. It's sister promotion Impact Pro Wrestling (Australia) was deleted via AfD. Badly fails WP:ORG !! Justa Punk !! 03:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —!! Justa Punk !! 03:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Maybe if it is not notable enough I could merge it with all the New Zeland wrestling companies into an article called "Professional wrestling promotions in New Zealand". Is that OK? WWE Socks 02:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. As it's not notable it shouldn't be part of any article. !! Justa Punk !! 22:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think that professional wrestling in New Zealand is very notable (just like professional wrestling in Australia). So I will make an article about it including WWE tours and such and IPW will be mentioned in it. Thanks WWE Socks 04:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I can find many sources that indicates that IPW is in fact a legitimate company and can find other sources other than NZPWI and it's website, will the page be re-considered for deletion? It was the original reason why the page "Impact Pro Wrestling (New Zealand)" was deleted.--DaTruGunJack (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been updated, to include various references in which IPW is mentioned & appeared in, will update page over the next week and a half. --DaTruGunJack (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that the company was founded by a GROUP of people, and nominated three people, Charles Warner, Nick Fergusson and Cameron Bailey to be directors of the group, which clearly states in WP:ORG that "Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose." On their website it proves just that, even from the day they debuted and also their notablilty can be found extensively on NZPWI.co.nz. Note as well at the bottom of IPW website says "Impact Entertainment Ltd. All Rights Reserved" So with all the evidence in the world to prove that they are a notable organization, there should be no reason why the Impact Pro Wrestling page should be deleted.--DaTruGunJack (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a group is an organization, it doesn't mean that they are a notable one. Per WP:ORG, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Therefore, to prove this wrestling promotion is notable, reliable independent sources need to be added. How is NZPWI.co.nz reliable? Are they different from any other wrestling "news" site? What is their fact checking? Nikki♥311 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NZPWI.co.nz is not like other wrestling "news" sites in that they do interviews (both written and audio) with many former & current TNA & WWE stars, examples like JBL, RVD, Christopher Daniels, AJ Styles and even Shane McMahon, they have also co-ordinated with other companies to promote international wrestling tours, which include the upcoming Hulkamania tour and TNA tour that's being held in Australia, the tour by WWA in 2003, which was the predecessor to TNA (The show in New Zealand was the last show made by WWA before merging with TNA) and all the WWE tours since 2006, yes they do post rummors but that does not take main priorty, instead it's logged into a section on their website called "Newsboard" and even then the rumors are usually credited as coming from PWInsider & 411mania. I can give more examples if neeed be. --115.189.146.205 (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. The sources used are not reliable third party sources due to the small size of the industry in New Zealand (only three feds it appears). There needs to be wider coverage provided. The fact that it exists is irrelevant like Nikki said. It must pass WP:N as well as WP:ORG and at present it doesn't. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 06:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the pro wrestling industry is small compared to that of Australia, Japan & the US, but there is more than three promotions in New Zealand. There is SCW (Southern Championship Wrestling) based in Blenehim in the South Island. AWE (Aotearoa Wrestling Entertainment) based in Wellington. And the now defuncted PWE (Pro Wrestling Entertainment) which was based in Auckland. The sources that are given as references are given as proof. The Youtube clips which were used as references, was put there because a) NZ content can only be viewed in New Zealand and b) the content previously existed on the relevant companies website, but no longer exsists and can only be found on Youtube. If I have to spend many nights trying to grab as many sources and information as such then I will, but I must point out that if IPW can't be notable because it lacks third-party sources then why is KPW & NZWPW able to continue normally despite the fact that they get most of their refernences from NZPWI, their own website & nzwrestling.com (Which I might add nzwrestling.com links doesn't work) --DaTruGunJack (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KPW is notable because of who's in charge - Butch Miller. Not sure about the other one. Of the sources you claim there are, how many pass WP:RS. Just because it's a source doesn't mean it helps. !! Justa Punk !! 04:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the NZWPW article, and it has links to other professions in combat sports and to notable areas at that. !! Justa Punk !! 04:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note; I've removed the TV info from Media because that's community TV and therefore not notable. History remains unsourced completely. !! Justa Punk !! 04:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that, thanks for the heads up, Alt TV was not community tv, that was a national channel. CTV is not community TV, it's ranked possibly as a Regional channel & Triangle Stratos is a national channel as well. I should mention (and this will be put into the page as well) that "The Deal" Dal Knox was in fact ranked in this years PWI Top 500. I'm not going to argue, but only work on improving this article. --DaTruGunJack (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any channel that allows community participation with programs is community TV. Stratos allows it. I'll check on the others. The PWI Top 500 does not prove notability, unless the ranking is high (ie in the top 100). !! Justa Punk !! 22:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete History unsourced and no significant coverage noted. Brief appearances not significant. Note to WWE Socks who says NZ industry is as notable as Australian; Did NZ ever have a fed like Jim Barnett's World Championship Wrestling? That's why Professional wrestling in Australia is notable and gets an article. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable, objective third-party sources is damning here. Promotional companies dealing with this organization are clearly going to play-up its significance. Admittedly, some of these sites include rumors, which certainly damages credibility. I don't see how it passes WP:ORG. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Lens[edit]

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

No need for a disambiguation page when no articles by its title exist. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no existing Bernard Lens so there is no need for disambiguation.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 03:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~One:~~ Two: Bernard Lens III, Bernard Lens II ~~will follow~~; Bernard the grandfather is barely notable and Bernard IV is, I am afraid, not. NVO (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Treat it not as a diambig but as an article in its own right, notability established (Sir Horace says "incomparable" and I have no reason to distrust his lordship). There's nothing wrong about articles on dynasties. I'll fix this one over the weekend. NVO (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC) now it is a disambig.NVO (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is it forbidden to start with a disambig page? This is a referenced material providing a good start for further expansion. It could be useful for the readers. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NVO and Vejvancicky. Anna Lincoln 11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a disambiguation page. It is probably only ever going to be a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page with only one link isn't necessary. Adambro (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Keep Now more than one Bernard Lens article exists so this disambiguation page is appropriate. Adambro (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a disambiguation page, but there's legitimacy to it. Give it a little time for expansion. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}

_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that links to the others will be provided soon, and they seem notable enough; one has been nominated for DYK. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. By the way: In German wikipedia, they distinguish people as here: de:Kaspar Winzerer (grandfather, father, son). Only nobilities would be named as Caspar I, Caspar II.... 78.55.100.137 (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but this numbering is what the source uses. The convention is sort of standard for artistic dynasties: Jacob de Gheyn II, Henricus Hondius II and coexists with "the elders" or "the juniors". NVO (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent work, NVO. --Chris Johnson (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like this will be expanded as and when required, and it it a useful disambiguation page, so no need to be deleted. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. henrik•talk 11:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ensemble (software)[edit]

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

Technical nomination only. AfD tag was added by an IP who couldn't create the discussion. Eastmain (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP's rationale was "PROD removed by creator. PROD reason was nonnotable software, no sources, seems like advertising." 98.248.33.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (copied from the article's history log by Eastmain (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's a newspaper article from India: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2007/07/24/stories/2007072450460400.htm See also this Google News archive search Possibly notable after all. See the article's history log for some context. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC) -- Eastmain (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non consumer software like a enterprise integration and SOA platform ought to face a fairly high bar for notability. The Google news archive results seem to be mostly press releases about contracts, releases, or minor trade awards. That isn't enough to get past the bar in such a spam-laden field, where every minor player imagines that they rate an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, dabify since there are many "Ensemble" in software. If kept, rename to InterSystems Ensemble, and dabify the primary name. 76.66.201.240 (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bohr Theory and Balmer–Rydberg Equation[edit]

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

Material already covered completely in other articles; physics is okay, but most cites are to a quack theory book S B H arris 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would "usually" vote "merge into Bohr model", but after having read both articles and the merge discussion, I agree that all said in the nominated article is said better in the Bohr model, and would add that a redirect would be useless because of the unwieldy name. Thus delete. Materialscientist (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essentially WP:OR - quoting one textbook does not an article make. Alternately, merge into Bohr model, per the suggestion on the page. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with MS that there's nothing to be merged. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and change to title to include verified.--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of supercentenarians who died in 2009[edit]

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

Aside from the fact that this is technically a list of verified supercentenarians who died in 2009, and not a list of anyone who claimed to be 110+ who died in 2009, I believe that this list violates WP:SAL, which requires that lists of people are selected for notability. Many of these individuals have little-to-no non-trivial coverage about them, aside from the occasional local news stories, and those that are notable have the same amount of information available on them on this page as they would on any of the pages located at Template:Longevity. Cheers, CP 23:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the list could be renamed to "verified", so that is not a major issue. This list does serve a purpose of organizing a lot of information into a small space, which is the purpose of a list. Also, I disagree with the "notability" requirement...according to the 2007 debates with such articles such as "list of oldest people from Britain" it was decided that individual notability was not needed/required, so long as group notabily existed.

Finally, it should be mentioned that supercentenarians are extremely rare, much rarer than, for example, 'actors' or 'college football players.'Ryoung122 20:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only thing notable about the majority of entries on this list appears to be the age of the deceased - I'm not sure that such a list is really necessary. That said, if this is deleted, then so too should any number of similar lists - List of verified living supercentenarians, 2008 deaths, 2007 deaths etc. DB 103245 ^talk 16:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep How is this any different from the other lists of supercentenarians who died a certain year? Longevitydude (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, it's not. If no one has any objections or has any particular ones that they feel are different from the rest, then I will add all of the "List of supercentenarians who died in..." list tomorrow. Cheers, CP 23:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we delete this, then we should delete all the other lists of people who died, how does this fail Template:Longevity or anything else you mentioned, there is no good reason for this afd, I think the real deal here is that CP just doesnt like articles on old people, I ask once more, KEEP THE ARTICLE!!!!!!!! Longevitydude (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't like articles on old people, that's why I've brought five of them up to Good Article status in addition to the many hours of work I've put into list of centenarians. Please keep our policy on no personal attacks in mind if you would like to contribute to this discussion further, thank you and Cheers, CP 23:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldnt delete this article, a lot of people like it. Longevitydude (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I agree that the list should be kept, please read WP:ILIKEIT. "People like it/don't like it" is not a serious argument for AfDs.--Cycl^opia - ^talk 20:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this list any different from all the other lists? If you delete this, youll hava to delete all the other lists of supercentenarians who died in a certain year as well as anything else that lists dead people, and any other list in general for that matter. Longevitydude (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:SALAT: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)." If being a supercentenarian in life is not inherently notable, then it should not be in death either. Location (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but living to be a supercentenarian is very notable, not very many people accomplish such an amazing feat. Longevitydude (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confusing what is notable to you with what is notable by encyclopedic standards (i.e. WP:N). As a percentage of the total population, not many people live to be a supercentenarian; however, the "accomplishment" is not that unusual if you look at the sheer numbers of people who have achieved supercentenarian-status. If it were, then Wikipedia would probably have articles on all of them. Location (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are some who accomplish something aren't notable doesn't mean that the accomplishment isn't notable. Just because not all of the supercentenarians are notable doesn't mean being a supercentenarian isn't notable.Think of actors, for example, not all of them are notable enough for articles, but isn't being an actor still notable? The point I'm trying to make is that something can be notable even if there are some who accomplish it that aren't notable, you say most supercentenarians aren't notable, well not all longevity claims or myths are notable, but that doesn't mean longevity claims and longevity myths aren't notable. I hope you understand by now that even though most supercentenarians aren't notable doesn't mean supercentenarians aren't notable.The list of examples are endless, but one thing they have in common is that even though most who accomplish them aren't notable, the subject itself is still notable. Longevitydude (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Living that long is very rare, so its a notable achievement in itself. Dream Focus 08:40, 22 October 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 00:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Deleting this article may lead for nominating all other "List of supercentenarians who died in XXXX" articles. I suggest renaming the article.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 03:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an appropriate class of article, with the necessary change in title to include "verified" DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Entirely appropriate and informative list. Even if not all entries are individually notable, the list itself is informative and the subject, in its broad scope, is notable -supercentenarians are regularly subject of academic studies, for example. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename to "List of verified supercentenarians (etc)". Due to the rarity of supercentenarians and to the fact that many supercentenarians are the subject of articles, this one doesn't seem redundant. McMarcoP (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we rename it, then we must rename all the other lists of supercentenarians who died in XXXX.Longevitydude (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But agree with the rename to "verified". These lists aren't long: the present 2009 one is 70 people and won't go over 100. The number of people over the age of 110 is never more than a few hundred on the planet, and roughly a third of them die in any given year. So these lists are not in danger of becoming any more unwieldy than lists of hurricanes or royalty. S B H arris 20:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It definitely is worth keeping. It is priceless if you are interested in gerontologic research. Besides - there are lot of far stupider lists. Keeping this one, which contains verifiable data about real people certainly could not make any harm. I agree with the "verified" change proposed. User:Pudlajs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudlajs (talk • contribs) 22:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HornFans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Non notable website can't find sig. news coverage. references itself and another non notable site. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JUJUTACULAR | TALK 15:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've been through this before. Site has enough significant coverage to pass WP:N guidelines. See Internet community reaches out to accident victim's family, Hornfans.com gives die-hards place to unite, and more on Google News Corpx (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your search was for "hornfans" try Hornfams.com and see how they dry up....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided links to two articles that give significant coverage to this site, which is all that's required to satisfy notability guidelines. If you search for hornfans statesman, it narrows down the term even more. A lot more coverage there, but most of the newsbank archives are not free. Corpx (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark von Herkomer[edit]

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

A PROD tag was removed without discernable improvement or the provision of any reliable sources. There is some claim of notability but the cited website for the Prince's Trust contains no entry for the word "Herkomer"; similar searches revealed nothing that would clarify the notability of this individual. Of course one does not inherit notability from one's ancestors. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Santiago[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE, violates WP:NOR, cites other Wikipedia articles, and basically all around reads like a POV homemade family website, which is to be expected due to conflict of interest. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to avoid confusion - this isn't the second nomination of the current article; the previous nomination dealt with an entirely different article at the same title. Shimgray | talk | 00:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Recognition from a national government (Puerto Rico) does provide notability for subject. --XLR8TION (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above, government recognition should be enough to provide notability. --Pyho ^T / _C 00:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Delete: While the topic does fall under the scope of WP:ACADEMIC, as Cirt stated, it does not provide sufficient reliable sources. --Pyho ^T / _C 01:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see enough to satisfy that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I wrote this article because of my father's national and international notable accomplishements which have been featured in the news. How many of us have been honored, by the Puerto Rican government, who considers him amongst their best military historians, U.S. Congress, the U.S. military and so on? Antonio Martin (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has never been nominated for deletion. The nominator confused ny father with a wrestler. Antonio Martin (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see lots of primary sources, links to Wikipedia itself, and sources affiliated with the subject. I don't see any significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I would like to present the image of Senate Resolution presented to him by the Puerto Rican Senate during a tribute:

Resolution of the Senate of Puerto Rico #3603 Reference: In spanish PDF. Thank you- Antonio Martin (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps just link to the image, instead of displaying the entire thing in the AFD discussion? Cirt (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could have done it yourself, as I just did... Its a wiki anyone can edit, after all...--Cerejota (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources or not, the number of recognitions and awards that Tony has received by military, social and political organizations is more than enough to warrant notability. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only independent/reliable source is the Arizona Post. The other websites are not proper newspapers, they are ad hoc publications with the stated aim of promoting Hispanics. Secondly this article gives the feel that the subject is an academic historian, but he is not, he writes for Hispanic advocacy outlets. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you feel that the article has issues, edit it, anyone can do it. However, the subject does meet the very first point of WP:BIO's additional criteria: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one". - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof of this. In Australian Parliament, the local member routinely makes congratulatory motions praising the local priest, community activist, all the time, and all the others agree all the time, as there is no harm in doing so and they would only lose votes by doing otherwise. They go to the local ethnic club, church etc and do a lot of these each year. None of the other stuff like writing for a small advocate/club newspaper with a pre-determined mission of promoting an ethnic group count. They also go and congratulate school students in their electoral district for winning competitions exams etc. Being congratulated in parliament is not proof of notability, otherwise, everyone who wins prizes in Year 12, or gets selected for their country in a youth sports team or an International Science Olympiad will become notable. The only way to edit this article is to remove all the content, ie delete. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, what makes you think that the Resolution is the only recognition that he has received? And what makes you say that he has only received awards from "ethnic groups"? You are not familiar with the article's subject. As a matter of fact, you only seem to be backing up your friend Cirt in the very same way way that I'm backing Tony, with the main difference being that I actually avoided a COI by not "voting". - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey: even if we accept your vie that Tony is an "advocate for Hispanics", this wouldn't be a reason to establish unsuitability to be covered. There are hundreds of BLPs for people who are amateur and/or partisan researches or historians. Chip Berlet for example. So this opposition is not how the community has defined notability.

The second part is a false analogy: the recognition that Tony received was not of the type you mention. I recognize that you might not be convinced to keep, but in arguing for deletion, please do not use false analogies or false claims: Tony's recognition by the PR Senate was a high honor, and was not given lightly by the PR Senate. It was not comparable to the "standard" recognitions a school team might get for pedestrian reasons. That said, this is not the only criteria of notability that has been given, so it should only be considered part of the reasons why this article must be included.--Cerejota (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is not solely established by secondary source coverage, objective criteria like awards, being voted into office (even if there is no significant coverage in secondary sources) etc is also used for notability. This is a BLP and there are plenty of BLPs, in particular sports figures and local politicians, that lack a wealth of secondary sources. Methinks that Cirt is giving a bureaucratic reading to the content rules: the idea is to keep out material that doesn't enrich the encyclopedia, and to keep the encyclopedia from being a list of everyone. In this case, deletion is not warranted, and while the article could be improved upon, it represents an addition that is both encyclopedic and notable. Tony Santiago is the premier amateur military historian on Puerto Rican and Hispanic/Latino affairs, and as sourced, has been recognized by private and public sources as such. It seems to be that the nominator should have made an effort to improve the perceived issues with the article before nomination for deletion.

Lastly, a very serious accusation of COI is made against a long-time editor and administrator in good standing. I suggest the nominator either retract this bad faith accusation or raise it at WP:COI, but it is certainly very unproductive and calls into question the purity of intent of the nominator. One could equally argue that it seems that the nominator has some sort of personal vendetta against Tony Santiago, for whatever reason.--Cerejota (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is obvious. The author is the subject's son, and the subject has also edited the article. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a COI violation: both facts are well known to the community and in particular to those of us in WP:PUR under which this BLP falls. Any issues of COI would have been swiftly dealt with. Again, deletion is not the answer, in any case editing is. I to wish that the sourcing be improved, but if minor porn stars from Japan have wikipedia articles, I do certainly think Tony Santiago should be covered by the encyclopedia. --Cerejota (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the talk page has the notice box on this. In other words, COI should be raised in an AFD as an element for deletion only if this is a significant factor in the quality of the article, or if the only reason it is included is because of COI. That is not the case here, and coupled with other quacking on the part of the nominator, I am not sure I can seriously view this as a good faith nomination. Of course we AGF, but we are also not stupid or made of rock.--Cerejota (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if minor porn stars from Japan have wikipedia articles, I do certainly think Tony Santiago should be covered by the encyclopedia.. Comparing the notability of a porn star to this is completely bewildering. —Dark 02:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cerejota. Although I do agree with the words penned by YellowMonkey, I feel that the wiki would be better for having this article, not deleting it. 129.108.69.234 (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is common knowledge that with time sources cease to exsist or are moved. I wrote this article with good-faith and therefore I am presenting here the reliable sources which have moved and which no doubt proof his notability:
"Phoenix Republic" - Author details contributions of Puerto Ricans, by Alison Stanton
Tony "The Marine" Santiago becomes official ANSO Historian
Primera Hora (Puerto Rico Newspaper-"El clan Clinton en el Capitolio"
The Arizona Republic-"A medal, a debt, both of honor", by John Faherty

Antonio Martin (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I would like to add as further evidence of his notability the following official documents, which were provided among the inter-wikilinks of the article:

Image:2Resolution 3603.jpg-Resolution of the Senate of Puerto Rico #3603
File:USMC_Letter.jpg-Unofficial Letter of appreciation from the USMC.
File:Discurso del Senado.jpg-Speech made before the Senate of Puerto Rico in 2007, by then President of the Puerto Rican Senate and now Lt. governor of Puerto Rico, the Honorable Kenneth McClintock.
File:Memorial Day (2008) Speech.jpg-Speech made in 2008, where the Puerto Rican Government paid tribute to my father in the presence of former U.S. President Bill Clinton and his wife former New York State Senator Hilary Clinton.
File:Speech by Luis Fortuno.jpg-by then U.S. Congressman and now governor of Puerto Rico Luis Fortuno, in recognizing my father.

It should not be diffcult to understand that a former head of state, former President of the United States Bill Clinton, New York State Senator Hilary Clinton (a presidential candidate at the time) and the President of the Puerto Rican Senate would not pose with my father for an official photograph, unless he were notable. Thank you Antonio Martin (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its fair to note that Primera Hora is one of Puerto Rico's main newspapers, along El Nuevo Día and El Vocero. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see the big issue about COI here, anyone can edit the article, for example Yellow Monkey edited the article to erase the word historian to describe Tony because he was "promoting Hispanics, this is advocacy not history". The Senate of Puerto Rico and the current governor of Puerto Rico seems to disagree with Monkey: "Mr. President, I am also pleased that you are honoring former Marine Antonio Santiago, who has devoted himself to preserving the history and accomplishments of Puerto Ricans in the U.S. military" (quote from a speech from the current governor of Puerto Rico Luis_Fortuno, 1) Notability here is not only established by official government recognition but by multiple reliable sources including "Phoenix Republic", and a major newspaper in Puerto Rico Primera Hora. --Jmundo (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep but only if reduced to an appropriate length. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cerejota. Improve instead of delete. Also, we should read the spirit of the law, in which Tony Santiago is surely notable, and while we could use some more and some better refs, it's well established who he is, what he's done, and why that's notable. I dismiss the COI claims because the aticle has been edited by a number of unrelated editors. And I'm loathe to assume bad faith, I do smell the odor of a game being played... I could be wrong. bahamut0013^words _deeds 04:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that yellow monkey has started a personal vendetta against an establish editor, please see his edit and bad faith edit summaries (Oct 23)contributions. --Jmundo (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one adding myself all over Wikipedia. I am not breaking the spam rules. I'm not interested in this red herring, although I'm well aware that on Wikipedia, right or wrong doesn't determine the outcome. IF If I add photos of myself all over wikipedia articles, feel free to block me. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, Im aware that you are not the one researching and writing hundreds of articles about the history of Puerto Rico, you seem to be the type of editor ready to make your point outside the AfD discussion .--Jmundo (talk) 06:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jmundo, watch it when you accuse an arbitrator of disruption to make a point and having a personal vendetta, especially with meagre and unsubstantial proof. Your involvement here is counter-productive, therefore I'll request you to recuse yourself from this discussion. Your escalation of this issue is quite disappointing. —Dark 10:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete think the dude is awesome, but I really fail to see the notability beyond self-reference to this website -- Samir 06:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might have missed that Primera Hora is a major newspaper. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No disrespect to Tony or his son, who has obviously put a substantial amount of time and effort into the article, but I am not convinced he meets the notability guidelines for biographies or has enough reliably published sources on him. Quoting or citing Wikipedia articles is not acceptable. To me, this article seems to signify that if one is an editor of Wikipedia, or a blogger, then one is notable enough for inclusion, which is definitely not true. There is also a strong conflict of interest concern, and I would suggest that if this article is kept, Tony and his son either refrain from editing the page, or show a high amount of restraint when editing it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recognition and honors by the Puerto Rican government plus coverage in several major newspapers would confirm WP:BIO requirements. However, I agree with DGG about editing the article into something much shorter. Warrah (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyone can edit the article per DGG's suggestions, but the subject has been publicly honored and has received press coverage. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, due to WP:COI, and insufficient coverage to meet basic criteria for WP:BIO. Although the individual has received awards (they in and of themselves are not significant enough to be considered "multiple independent sources" (a couple more might increase it to meet the criteria)) , the majority of sources are primary. Although I have nothing against the subject of the article, and think that he is doing a fine job in being an advocate for Hispanics in the military. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article passes both conditions for which it was nominated. It could be edited for improvement as per suggestions already mentioned but deletion is not justified. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 21:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here are the facts, not only do we have reliable verifiable sources, among them the “Phoenix Republic” [53], The Association of Naval Officers [54], Primera Hora Newspaper [55] and the Arizona Republic [56] plus we also have the official documents and photographs as evidence of his notability, as a reminder the documents and photographs are reliable sources.

1. Resolution of the Senate of Puerto Rico #3603 Image:2Resolution 3603.jpg an important honor bestowed upon him in 2007, by the Government of Puerto Rico, making him the first known person to be honored by a government for his work in "Wikipedia" File:Tony with Representatives2.jpg. He is notable enough to have been included in a Memorial Day speech made by the President of the Puerto Rican Senate and transmitted by radio stating how through Wikipedia he helped in identifying various soldiers of Puerto Rican descent whose names were to be inscribed in “The Monument of Rememberance” File:Discurso del Senado.jpg.

2. He is notable enough to have been once again included in the 2008, Memorial Day Speech by the government File:Memorial Day (2008) Speech.jpg, to be presented an award this time by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Honorable Jose Aponte File:Apnote, Tony and McClintock.jpg and important enough for the former President of the United States Bill Clinton and family to take an official photo with him during his tribute in the State Capital File:Tony and Clintons2.jpg.

3. He is notable enough to be referred to in speech by a member of the "United States Congress", Congressman Luis Fortuno File:Speech by Luis Fortuno.jpg.

4. To receive a United States Marine Corps Unofficial Letter of appreciation for his work in Wikipedia File:USMC_Letter.jpg.

5. And to be awarded the Joint Task Force Commander's Coin File:Joint Task Force Commander's Coin for Excellence.jpg and Certificate for Excellence File:Certificate JTF Guantanamo.jpg by the Deputy Commander of the Joint Task Force Guantanamo, which is an impact award given by the Joint Task Force Commander to those soldiers and civilians he deems worthy of immediate recognition. [57]

He did not seek these recognitions, which were bestowed upon him before I wrote his article. However, I did so because I truly believe that he is notable and the newspapers, photographs and documents which I have provided should serve as proof to that fact. As Dark stated above: if minor porn stars from Japan have wikipedia articles, I do certainly think Tony Santiago should be covered by the encyclopedia.. Comparing the notability of a porn star to this is completely bewildering. Thank you, Antonio Martin (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio, you seemed to have misinterpreted the comment. I am saying that because something else on Wikipedia has not been deleted, that does not make this article any more notable, hence my link to WP:WAX. And the comparison was a quote of Cerejota's original comment. —Dark 06:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - has Tony commented either way as to whether this article should be kept or not? - Alison ^❤ 01:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony says "To tell you the truth, I don't mind if the article about me is deleted, it happens." John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice to have an article written about you, especially if it is written by one's son, but who am I to determine if I am notable or not? It isn't up to me. If the article is deleted, I will continue to be myself, it happens. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - per Warrah and Bahamut, Cerejota. When one of our own receives recognition from the world we record, we should be glad that our work is being noted for positive reasons, and not just the usual scandals. We record what the world records, and if it records one of us sufficiently or notably, we should record him or her as well. These stellar contributions have made Wikipedia highly relevant to an entire island nation and its diaspora. It's important that people can learn, neutrally, about the author. Like the Puerto Rican government and people, I also say thank you for this hard work. -->David Shankbone 02:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet a minimal threshold for notability. Everyking (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep - It is a terrible vanity page now. But it seems to pass the threshold for notability, and so the page should stay. I hope someone with less COI can help on it. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, yes Cyclopia, I totally agree with you. If the article is kept I will stay out of it and request that my father do the same, thereby eliminating the COI issue. I will keep a watch for any vandalism which may come up, and handle it just as I would any other article. Antonio Martin (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how difficult is to deal with such a situation, and I don't think you should be shut out of editing -after all, you can help finding sources etc. I hope only that someone else with some knowledge of the subject steps in (I am not that someone, unfortunately), to help maintain the article in an unbiased state. I appreciate extremly your objective and professional comment. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I'm just not seeing this individual as meeting WP:BIO. The subject comes across as a successful individual but nothing that makes him especially notable such a multiple, non-trivial reliable sources. Having one's picture taken with a President or having been mentioned in a speech by a congressperson simply doesn't cut that. We need sources and I'm not seeing them here. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observation & comment It isn't as simple as having an official photo taken with not only a former U.S. President and his wife who at the time was the Presidential candidate of her party (notice that the subject was positioned in the middle) nor a simple mention by U.S. Congressman. From: WP:BIO.

1. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one.

The Resolution bestowed upon the subject by the Government of Puerto Rico is a notable award and recognition which required the approval by vote of the majority of the members of said legislative organization and is not given to just anyone. The section "Resuelvese Por El Senado De Puerto Rico" states the following: "1. The Senate of Puerto Rico would like to express it's recognition and appreciation of Mr. Antonio Santiago for his disinterested dedication to the cause of informing, through the news means of electronics, information in regard to distinguished Puerto Ricans, particularly those who served with distinction in our military."

2. Sources

The resolution document Image:2Resolution 3603.jpg is a secondary source and not a primary source because it is not a document created by such a person (subject). Plus, the following is a newspaper source written by someone not related to the subject. "Phoenix Republic" - Author details contributions of Puerto Ricans, by Alison Stanton.

His recognition's came about as a result of being a "Wikipedian" and should serve as an inspiration to us all that our work here does make a difference. I mean, just think about this for a moment, how many "Wikipedians" have been honored and received an important award by a government or whatever for his/her work in Wikipedia? Antonio Martin (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Ab Sabalan[edit]

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

This is an article about a nonnotable organization which fails WP:ORG as it has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, nor has it made a significant impact in the corporate world. My searches for information to evidence notability led me mostly to Wikipedia mirrors and other non-reliable sources. Them From Space 05:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable company, any substantial information on the subject. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Chisholm[edit]

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

Subject seems to fail WP:ENT. Career basically consists of bit parts with only one credited role (which was very small). <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no major roles and more importantly, no significant coverage about her in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_October_16#Tanya_Chisolm same person? --Milowent (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly, but as the article has been deleted, it's difficult to tell unless one is an admin with access to the deleted material to compare. -- Whpq (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For info, the entirety of the deleted article mentioned above read as follows:

“

Tanya Chisholm is a notable American actor. Chisholm's credits include parts in Disney's High School Musical and Cory in the House.

Her part in the High School Musical franchise was as Jackie, the lead "Sharpette".

”

Hope that helps...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then these articles are the same person, mostly the same content. No harm in letting this AfD run a little longer though, I suppose.--Milowent (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, yes, this is about the same person. The other article misspelled her name. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenheart (single)[edit]

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

Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it.

Fails criteria for music singles. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC) tedder (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The info in this stub is already covered in the band's wikipage. --Whoosit (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely redirect term, content already covered elsewhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trust-based marketing[edit]

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

Apparent neologism, cannot find reliable sources to establish notability of this outside of Mr. Urban. tedder (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. No, not a neologism. Over 5800 hits on Google. While the article is far too centered on this Prof. Urban, it is definitely a new concept in marketing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, marketing, nothing else. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:00, 18 October 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) 00:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm inclined to agree with JohnnyB256. While the article seems to have been written mostly by some acolyte of Urban, there's news and scholar references to it out there.[58], [59], Research on marketing sometimes looks like just marketing (they can't help themselves), but is actually legitimate.--Milowent (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete or Userfy - at least until we can we find sources other than the paper written by the possible neologism's author, and/or a "Amplified Analytics aggregates and analyzes online customer product reviews" [60] that anyone can post to. I think that until others start using the term, in regular useage, it's only Mr. Urban using it. And even then I cannot find an explanation of the term not written by him, then only quoted by others. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 09:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William macneish[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"... mainly known for bit parts"? Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairhorn (talk • contribs)
Delete - The article is pretty much self-nominating for AFD isn't it? For completeness sake, there is no entry for a William MacNeish on IMDB. And checking the full cast list of the 40 Year old Virgin shows no credit given for a William MacNeish or variations thereof. As such it fails the fundamental policy of verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. I've moved the article to William Macneish. Be aware of this if closing with a script. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the person's unsourcable "fame" has not even translated to IMDB [61]. In looking over the projects in which the article asserts he had roles, his name was not found. G3 hoax anyone? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That "Mainly known for bit parts" says it all, really. McMarcoP (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And what's more, in researching the name, he apparently is not known even for bit parts... or anything else. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently (assuming the article isn't just a complete hoax) by "bit parts" he means "extra work"—if he'd had a speaking role in a major movie like the ones mentioned, he'd be credited and listed on the IMDb. So maybe he's been working consistently as an extra, great, but that doesn't come close to making him notable enough for an entry. —Smeazel (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killesberg Tapes[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a bootleg with no coverage to establish it as notable in some way as a bootleg. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original Funky House Selection[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is a compilation album of no note. There is nothing disctinctive about this selection that has caused anybody to take notice. The only things I could find are websites that sell this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 21 October 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, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Colors (band)[edit]

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

No evidence to verify degree of this "influential" band. Had one notable member (not two as required at WP:BAND). Various google searches ([62], [63], [64]) yield nothing relevant that isn't MySpace, Wikipedia or websites with dubious verifiability or [[WP:|RS|reliability]]. Nothing to suggest this band was influential. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 'Notable' member has performed in one notable band other than this one, and seems to be notable in his own right, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pat Pantano. The assertion of being influential does not appear to be supported. IOf they really were influential, I would expect there to be documentation of it in news articles or music books discussing the 80's. I can find no such sources. As such a merge is appropriate to the only member of the band that has an article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 22 October 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, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without this band Pat Pantano is not notable and should be redirected to The Dirtbombs (I'll do that after this afd). Nothing sourced so nothing to merge. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BAND, article states they are an "influential rock and roll band" but can find no WP:RS to support or even hint at this. Their releases were not on a major indie label, no evidence of a national tour. J04n(talk page) 21:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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