Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 5

< 4 October	6 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 Speedy delete. The article was deleted as a CSD A9 for unrelated reasons some time after this AfD was created.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rain Stars Eternal[edit]

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

Basically nothing useful in this article ...

I agree. Btilm 02:17, 5 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. Icewedge (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi five simulator prefix[edit]

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

Obscure patent, google only shows linked blog entry Rror (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nerfari (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article appears to be a joke (as suggested by the off-topic picture) and even were it not it's a non-notable device/invention. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears like it might be a test/joke page, image doesn't appear relevant, and would likely be non-notable anyway (if it exists). Vincent Valentine 04:00, 12 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) 10:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Country Cinema[edit]

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

The creator contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this group. Joe Chill (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything I find with Google is either routine announcements in local media or passing references like this one. [1] I found one reference in Google Books but that also seems to be a one sentence allusion. If someone wants to save this article they need to find an article about this group (not just an article that mentions them in passing) in a significant publication or there is no hope of establishing notability.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that this is notable today. If they continue and get noticed by the media this could change, but not now. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:41, 6 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 g3, obvious hoax/vandalism, author now blocked for creating attack pages. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roomates[edit]

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

completely made up, no references Rror (talk) 23:20, 5 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. Blanked by author; G7 NW (Talk) 23:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Hopkins[edit]

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

Completely made up, no references. Rror (talk) 23:19, 5 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 - notability not asserted. Kevin (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bird[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSICBIO Dlabtot (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Playing with a notable act isn't an assertation really, if it's unsourced "known for". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:14, 5 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 procedural close. It is apparent that bundling these articles together is not a good idea. Speedy renomination of individual articles is permitted. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mob Figaz[edit]

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

While this band does seem to exist, I cannot find any evidence that it has accomplished the feats claimed in the article: Billboard's web site does not confirm that they have been on the charts there, and the sources I found were blogs, not reliable published sources.

Related articles included in this nomination:

The Jacka
Rydah J. Klyde
AP.9 (Rapper) FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Jacka for multiple charted albums on a major Billboard chart, and keep Rydah J. Klyde for three albums on a notable label. Undecided on the other two, for which the A7 was removed by someone who's claiming there's notability but isn't proving it. They both look like slam-dunk A7s to me, but since they've already been untagged… Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bundled in this AfD are a couple of rappers that clearly meet WP:MUSIC; if any single one doesn't meet it, the article should be listed separatel. Chubbles (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (relating to Mob Figaz only, I haven't looked at the others) per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2. Assuming the truth of the claims in the article, their album C-Bo's Mob Figaz charted 63 on Billboard's Top R&B Albums chart, which are a major national US chart, satisfying the criterion of "has had a charted single or album on any national music chart." - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further - this should be the link you need to establish the accuracy of its chart history. I'll go add it to the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:41, 8 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen M. Colarelli[edit]

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

Non-notable bio per WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC, unreferenced. MuffledThud (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GS cites give h index = 10, GSearch gives high hits so article rates an AfD. Input from scholars in the field would be helpful. Article would need expansion if kept. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Cited Google Scholar search shows enough stature in field to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Web of Science shows 25 peer-reviewed papers-- highest citations 93, 66, 56, 56 --quite respectable for the subject. Full professor at a reasonably good university, so not surprising. His book is in 200 US libraries, according to WorldCat.` DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above & according to EXPERT EVALUATES IRAQ WAR FROM EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE "Stephen Colarelli is one of the world's leading scholars on the intersection of evolutionary psychology and the workplace."John Z (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Z and DGG. I think on those terms it meets WP:ACADEMIC. Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:51, 9 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. WP:SNOW Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC) 01:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andres A Pena[edit]

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

Contested PROD; original rationale was "Non notable soccer player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG; there is also a WP:COI as the article author looks to be the player in question." Giant Snowman 22:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The article itself says he hasn't got a professional career Spiderone 06:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom nom nom. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Steve-Ho (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As everyone above has already said, he fails WP:ATHLETE. What's more, I can't see how he'll become a professional player whilst at university - the NCAA is strictly amateur. Bettia (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are you sure the guy didn't write it himself? Govvy (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by Andrespena85 (talk · contribs), so I strongly suspect he did...Giant Snowman 17:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable player, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 03:51, 10 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olympique Montreux[edit]

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

Non-notable local soccer club, no WP:RS/significant coverage in Google to indicate notability. Contested PROD. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 22:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODder. Giant Snowman 22:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- just a local team Spiderone 06:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would suggest re-creation only if team ever qualifies for the US Open Cup (which they have not done to date) --JonBroxton (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local team Steve-Ho (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where is it in the league ladder? Govvy (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Second apparently, per this, although I don't see why that would make a difference. A tiny local club that plays in a park is still a tiny local club that plays in a park no matter where it is in the table of its league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not that league ladder, the league structure of America ladder! Anyway, according to the Utah Soccer Association aboutus page They aren't an association, they are just a Hall of Fame, there for I will go with delete also. Govvy (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Olympique Montreux are a USASA club (Level 6+ in the American ladder), and so like the thousands of other local amateur teams across the country, are non-notable until they do something notable. Pretty much the only way for a USASA club to become notable is to qualify for the US Open Cup, and as far as I am aware, they have never even entered it. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- WOW so much hate for a local club. I would think that the most coveted club to play for in utah would be worthy of a wiki page...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.239.10 (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Real Salt Lake already have a wiki page. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amateur team with no special notability. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:56, 8 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. The concerns of the "delete" !voters seem to have been addressed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GotFrag[edit]

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

No significant coverage in secondary reliable sources in Google to indicate meeting WP:WEB. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 21:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no WP:RS for this site, and what references are used on the article now are all first-person (except the one cnet blog entry)... fails WP:WEB as well as WP:V... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And the CNET piece is just a brief announcement of an buisness acquisition, which talks more about the company that acquired GotFrag than about GotFrag. Everything I found was either obvious promotioinal material or user contributed comments at sites like Urban Dictionary. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB --Teancum (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. GlassCobra 03:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - See: [2] "Gotfrag is the best source of gaming info for the hard-core community." [3] [4] [5] [6]. The game demos GotFrag archives were used in scientific research: [7]. Used as a source by GameSpot [8]. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Odie's sources prove that it is notable and a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Raybourne (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, based on a couple of the sources cited above (especially the Kane book which does mention the site several times). I have striken my delete vote, but I encourage editors interested in the article to acutally cite some of these more notable sources in the article itself to avoid ending up here again.Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else does it at the end of the AfD I'll try to (at least adding some to external links.) Can't say I have much interest in the subject, but I agree they shouldi be added. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Gotfrag is the goto source for eSports coverage, and any attempt to cover eSports in an encyclopedic fashion should cover Gotfrag. The issue is that there's few sources about the website itself, and you'll likely find the same issue with other trade publications. Given Odie's sources though, I think the subject does pass notability guidelines. - hahnch e n 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Just ekes through the independent coverage of the site requirements of WP:WEB. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:01, 12 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. Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance (CSD G6). decltype (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Golden[edit]

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

This page was originally created because both an album and a single by Mika were titled "We Are Golden" therefore a disambiguation page seemed fair. However, the title of the album has since changed to The Boy Who Knew Too Much. As the single's article is the only relevant article on Wikipedia holding the title "We Are Golden" I think a deletion of this page, replaced by We Are Golden (song), would be appropriate. Jonny (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G6 This seems like a non-controversial pagemove. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:58, 5 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

101st Chemical Company (United States)[edit]

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

Recent discussion at WT:MILHIST concluded [9] that separate company level subunits that are not capable of independent combat action are not notable. Several deletions and Prods have taken place in line with this, eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States). This this subunit is being nominated for deletion. Buckshot06(prof) 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Delete trivial operations, trivial awards, as is usual of support companies. If one should ever actually do something notable, then that one might be notable, but I haven't seen an example here yet. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 21:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I supported the original proposed deletion, basing my support on WP:CORP criteria. I'm not aware of any specific inclusion criteria that might apply to a US military company. I've asked WP:MIL if they could look at the article and give their opinion. I suspect that DGG is correct in his evaluation of the article. -- Atama頭 21:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was the most exensive coverage I could find, but it takes more than routine coverage of a unit homecoming to establish notability. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. As with most support service sub-units, this unit is not automatically notable (though should it become so, an article would be welcome). EyeSerene^talk 08:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Nothing to indicate notability here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:54, 7 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. Author did not mean to create the article yet, and requested its deletion via the volunteer response team. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Breaking Point (Anthology)[edit]

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

Fixing malformatted AFD that no one else could be arsed to fix. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep collection of short stories from author famous for them. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 5 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 to Jat Airways. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jat Airways Flight JU420[edit]

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

Aircraft over-runs end of runway, no-one hurt. This really does not have "historical notability" - fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. The first is a contested PROD, we may as well take them both together. JohnCD (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - I don't see that they meet the notability requirement in any way. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (both) or Merge with Jat Airways in the "Incidents and accidents" section. Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Nothing indicates that this incident is notable as airplanes that skid off the runway are not rare, especially during poor weather conditions and when there are no fatalities or injuries. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 22:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, aircraft only suffered minor damage, adequately covered in Jat Airways article. Titles should be considered for conversion to redirects. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jat Airways per WP:AIRCRASH. Bless you Thryddulf, wherever you are, for reforming those guidelines. I would support the creation of a list of runway overruns for this and other non-fatal accidents that are in Category: Runway overruns; if it existed, I would support a longer mention there. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jat Airways because Jat is just such a cool word. But really, per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:COOLWORDS. --Triadian (talk) 05:28, 10 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 know that it has only been open for a day, and that the article's creator hasn't been able to respond yet, but the consensus on this is clear. I don't think it will go any other way. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 03:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eskimo Buddhism[edit]

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

WP:Neologism; only sources are blogs; one academic source is completely unrelated; no significant hits from Google search. Author of article is currently blocked for one week, but I will invite him to comment on his talk page and transclude it here. Singularity42 (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment previously transcluded from User talk:Jemesouviens32. {{User talk:Jemesouviens32}}

Now removed, as changed user talk page is breaking the archived version of the AfD. Please re-add the transclusion if you have enough wikifu to point it at the correct version. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reasonable references other than blogs, as nom points out, and generally appears to have been made-up, with nobody covering it seriously. Fails notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. No reliable sources - no article in Wikipedia. Broccoli (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in order to make sure this AfD is completely fair, the author has on numerous occasions pointed to this article as a reliable source. I have rejected it due to it being completely irrelevant. It's on a completely different topic (i.e. the cultural and religious origin of Tamils), and only has one useful throwaway line: "If the Bodhisathva was born into a European culture nearly 2600 years ago he would not have attained Buddhahood. Can anyone imagine an "Eskimo" Buddha?" Therefore, I do not think it counts a reliable source for this article's subject. Singularity42 (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above. This is a hoax. Bluehotel (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cited sources do not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines, and I was not able to find any reliable sources with my own search to confirm that this religion exists or is notable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Kudos to the author: Quite an effort...creating a blog, a twitter account and multiple WP entries...creative...I lol'd...yet: a hoax Andi 3ö (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can imagine indigenous North American buddhists. I can't imagine a unique set of buddhist practices being as difficult to document as this. Not reliably documented, no evidence of notability. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This just looks nn...Modernist (talk) 00:11, 6 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. per WP:SNOW Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC) 01:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Presley Keough[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. Signed to a label, but no songs released, much less charted. No albums released either, guideline requires two. Lara 20:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not yet notable. Kevin (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - come back when he has actually pass WP:MUSICBIO.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not yet notable. Yworo (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per VS. Nothing here to indicate individual notability. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there are sources out there, the best I can find are this article from The Telegraph and this article from the Daily Mail. Not great, but something, and the fact that the news for which he is receiving this coverage just broke would suggest that by the time this AfD ends the story will be picked up by many other media outlets. Admittedly, I have inclusionist tendencies when it comes to biographical articles. faithless (^speak) 23:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily I have deletionist tendencies on biographical article to counter that. ;) Even if his record deal picks up traction in the news, he's still not notable by MUSICBIO. Being Elvis' grandson or whatever may get him special attention in the media, but notability isn't inherited on WP. Lara 00:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specific notability guidelines like MUSIC, ATHLETE, and ENTERTAINER can be handy guides, but they are by no means hard-and-fast rules. Not that you need to be told this, but Wikipedia:Notability states: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Mind you, I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here, but if this guy receives significant media coverage, it doesn't really matter why he receives it. An artist doesn't need a number one single or a platinum album to be notable - for a hyperbolic example, the Grateful Dead never enjoyed any chart success whatsoever, but no one would deny their notability. Again, I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'. :) faithless (^speak) 04:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just throwing this out there: since yesterday Entertainment Weekly, The Daily Telegraph, Perez Hilton, and Metro have all run stories on him. Does this coverage make him notable? Maybe, maybe not; to be honest, I don't care much either way. faithless (^speak) 21:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm an inclusionist JGG59 (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I'm mostly an inclusionist, but this person is not notable enough for the drama that comes with being a grandson of elvis who has a wikipedia biography. Where are the he's actually elvis reincarnated people? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above he isn't really notable yet. You can't establish notability by saying he's the grandson of Elvis or simply because he signed a record deal. Try again when there's something of substance to write about. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. I think the idea that the subject isn't notable yet is spot on - a $5 million contract is impressive, but the notability guideline of WP:MUSICBIO is tied to the releases themselves. So, when his first album is released and charts, which I expect it will, then he will meet criteria #2 (Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart.), and we'll have an article on him after all. We're not there yet, though. Would a mention of the contract be in order for the record label, though? It is a large contract receiving some media attention. Not a great compromise, but it's something. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:39, 7 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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich. The history has been left intact to allow a merge of relevant information: the overall consensus is that there has been insufficient substantial coverage to demonstrate sufficient notability for a separate article. Those arguing for deletion, while they have fairly convincingly demonstrated that this is does not warrant a separate article at this time, have not really refuted the suggestion to merge any relevant content to the diocese's article. ~ mazca ^talk 21:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph Parish, Norwich[edit]

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

After a large number of articles on parishes were created, I nominated these for deletion through ProD because of a lack of notability. This is contested by the author (claiming that I have to prove that they are not notable), so I bring one of those here as a testcase (I can't do a mass nomination anyway because they may have varying degrees of notability). So, this one: it has four sources, but e.g. the first one is a pure listing in passing[10] The article, despite the four sources, has no info on what would make this parish notable. A reasonable number of Google News searches, but they only give us local coverage, most of it in passing[11]. Fram (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as it currently stands. I'm not sure that a parish meets the notability threshhold the way that a geographic entity such as a village does. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A parish is a relatively stable geographic entity, much like a village. The more I think about it, the more I begin to think that a parish (like a village, a regiment, or a high school) is a perfectly acceptable topic in itself, as long as we have sources for the article. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm inclined to think that the Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques should be our guide in this: treat parishes in the article on the city or the diocese. This could then be a redirect. Unless, of course, it's a parish that is itself a subject of multiple third-party sources, even though the references currently fail to reflect that. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea if this is really feasible (or wanted) though. Dioceses have many, many parishes, e.g. Charleston has 117 parishes[12], Marquestte has 88[13], Tyles has 69[14], Los Angeles has 305[15]... Overall, there are apparently over 20,000 parishes in the US alone. Fram (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, not being paper, we can split out "Parishes in the diocese of Charleston" (or wherever) when the section threatens to overburden the main article on the diocese. Is your point that parishes should each be a separate article (like towns and villages)? I think that would be even more unmanageable. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Editing to add: I hadn't noticed that you were the nominator, so presumably you aren't arguing that parishes should have their own articles, and I'm at a loss as to what your point is. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that they should definitely not have separate articles (unless they are notable), and should generally not be mentioned in other articles either. However, if the consensus is that mentioning them in the city article, or creating a list for them, is the way to go, then I have no fundamental problem with that. I don't see the point of a list of subjects that are by themselves not notable, chances are that it will become a directory and nothing more, but it is acceptable. The article we are discussing here is already listed in Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in New England (just like the other ones I tried to ProD), and I am not nominating that list for deletion. Fram (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Turns out a Polish professor wrote a book of over 300 pages about the history of this particular parish. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A book written especially for its 75th birthday, without a publisher? That's not really an independent source, isn't it? Fram (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC) You can see his similar book about another parish, written for the centennial, published by that parish.[16] These seem to be books on command, made for the parish to celebrate a jubilee. They can be used as a source once a subject is sufficiently notable, but they can normally not be used to establish the notability. Apart from that, good catch, I hadn't noticed that source. Fram (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's often the way with parish histories - they're written for centenaries/anniversaries. In this instance the calibre of the author should also count. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be just another church and fails WP:N. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:N - I don't considered the book significant. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify why not? Most village, high school and regimental histories are not "independent" in the sense we would like, but that doesn't disqualify them as sources. A parish history written by an internationally well-regarded academic historian is not an everyday kind of source. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the articles about Polish ethnic parishes in New England, which are part of Polish and Polish immigrants in the U.S.(about 2 million) history. Before I give a detailed explanation, please give me an interpretation of the following rules Wikipedia:

1. From Wikipedia:Discrimination#Cases

Notability guidelines. 
Some information may be notable for some groups of people and not notable for other. 
For example football may not be notable for most women and articles and content about notable women, 
or concerning women in other way, 
may not be interesting and in this way notable for most of men. 
Also some notable content for Afro Americans may not be notable for some white Americans. Etc. 
In such case when a topic is concerning specifically one group, 
especially when it is misrepresented in Wikipedia and is a minority editors group, 
or it is a minority group within English speakers, or is in other way a minority group, 
notability issues should reflect the idea of "notability for this group" 
and in this case Wikipedia Discrimination policy may be used against the Notability guideline as a stronger rule.

2. Notability . Is the subject notable? Yes or No. If No - end of discussion. If Yes - then we can discuss about sources.

What is not notable in the St. Stanislaus Bishop & Martyr's Parish, Chicopee. This is one of the articles selected for removal, and there are 78. Sincerely, --WlaKom (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wp:discrimination is a proposal and is neither a guideline or a policy. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to make clear is that nobody is ganging up on WlaKom, nor on Catholics, nor on Poles or Polish Americans. If this was a series of articles about Irish American parishes, or parishes in the Philippines, or Episcopal parishes, Southern Baptist congregations, Masonic lodges or secular humanist associations, the issues would be exactly the same. The second thing is that this is not WlaKom against Wikipedia - we're all just a random bunch of people, a tiny sample of everybody that edits wikipedia, trying to reach consensus about whether wikipedia should include these as separate articles or not. There's a tendency to fall into confrontational rhetoric about whether or not something is suitable for inclusion, but this doesn't really help either side in the discussion. Thirdly, finally, the issue that we have to address here is not "are these institutions important to a particular group of people" (in casu Polish Americans) but rather: are they "notable" in Wikipedia's empirical (but slightly counter-intuitive) sense of "having been taken substantial note of in secondary and tertiary sources". Saying "they aren't notable" is not to say they are not interesting, or not worthwhile, or not valuable, but simply that they have not been noted in substantial ways that we can verify. This means that we have to discuss sources first, in order to establish whether the answer to notability is "yes" or "no". --Paularblaster (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have more question related to this issue to understand guidance for notability.

Based on "that they have not been noted in substantial ways that we can verify" from User:Paularblaster. also, based on I don't considered the book significant from User:Cameron Scott.

All Polish-American parishes (so far 80 I created) are qualify for deletion within 7 days, because there are no differences between them.

All of them were built by not notable people in not notable places. Just 100 years old, small unknown organizations used by not notable poor people.

What about any cemetery. For example Dawes Road Cemetery Are they notable?

What about Muslim objects. Are they notable? For example Islamic Center of East Lansing. Which objects are more notable which less without reliable sources?

Should I mark all of them for deletion? There are hundreds religious objects like these. Once finally agree on what kind of religious object are not notable. I can help to do major clean up not notable articles. I count on your support.

What kind of articles without any sources are notable? If not, should be marked for deletion?

BTW

Seems to be just another church and fails [[WP:N]]. [[User:Youngamerican]]

The parish is not the same as the church. You add your comment to the wrong article.--WlaKom (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Despite being asked not to do this, user:WlaKom has again canvassed for support for this article in this discussion on the Wikiproject Catholicism talk page. Can someone else try to make it clear to him that this is unacceptable? Perhaps he or she can at the same time make it clear that adding your own unassessed list to a list of featured lists is not correct either... Fram (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for opinion based on Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices.

or perhaps to a Wikipedian known for being an expert in a related field and who's shown interest in participating in related discussions.

Sincerely, --WlaKom (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- That section starts with "Neutrally worded notifications". Yours wasn't neutrally worded at all... Fram (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unless independent, reliable sources turn up (I would not call the book that, many subjects have books about them, that does not make them notable). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the Journal of American Ethnic History, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Spring, 1984), p. 97: "A large part of the history of Polish American community life has been derived from a variety of valuable commemorative works, such as the anniversary “albums” and honorific biographies prepared by local parish committees." Most of these we would be constrained to treat as sources not independent of the subject. Here we have such a work written by an eminent academic ecclesiastical historian. If you read WP:N carefully (and a few other AfD discussions) I think you'll come to the conclusion that whatever the dictionary definition of "notable", on wikipedia "having books about them" pretty much fits the bill. --Paularblaster (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote shows that such primary sources (like books commissioned by or published by the parish) are very important to create secondary ones, which is not disputed. However, as long as these secondary sources are not available, it has no place on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a permanent organization with a substantial history. Though to prove notability really there needs to be something other than a book, perhaps a newspaper article? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a fair amount of coverage in the Hartford Courant - but as it's pay-per-view I'm not sure how substantial it is. --Paularblaster (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I gave these in my opening statement already :-) Fram (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I used a slightly different search term that turned up a few article headlines - not just passing mentions. --Paularblaster (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New sources? According to this snippet demographic and historical research on the parish has been published. The snippet doesn't provide the footnote, so I can't see whether these have already been brought up here or not. Anybody have access to the book? --Paularblaster (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment Now I will try to explain why I believe that the "parishes", which was founded by Polish immigrants are very notable. (Polish: [znakomity, wybitny, godny uwagi] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help))

The parish is not just a group of people, it is the church + cemetery + more than 100 year history of our ancestors (almost half the time the existence of the USA). Churches do not create the story. Church, temple of other religious groups, it is just an empty building and as such should never be considered as a notable. It parishes founded by immigrants formed the history of the United States, what is obvious for US citizens. It is the average immigrants, grouped in parishes, developed the city and created history.

Wikipedia articles are created to broaden our knowledge about the past, discover it, rather than eliminate because it is not widely known at the time. Of course, "parish" will never win with this "exciting" slogans like: sports, entertainment, people, porn stars and local politics. The name "parish" is obviously boring and not interesting for many. But thousands of people browsing the Internet in search of their roots, information on how their ancestors lived. Then travel long distances to these places to see, touch.

I think that "clinging to" the lack of full documentation is irresponsible and demonstrating a lack of respect for history. What sources do you expect? Who was it written?

I personally, for about 10 years, engaged in collecting and updating data on the Polish-American parishes in the U.S. This theme is very pristine and demanding development, and involvement of many people in their expending, as I had hoped, when writing about these parishes. Some parishes are already closed. People I know are too old to give me more information or to indicate the source. There is one priest in Webster, which has a large knowledge of the Polish-American parishes, but now he is elusive.

Recently I started a discussion on "stab" for a parish in the U.S. This would allow to ask people for help in developing these terms. This article and others, marked for deletion, is no distinguishable from the current articles, the Polish-American parishes in the Archdiocese of Boston. Their form and content have been previously discussed with administrators and got the green light for further development. Nobody has ever had to them, any objections. Therefore, it is incomprehensible to me that, at this moment, what is in these articles are not notable? "parish", "Catholic", "Polish". What's changed in terms of writing Wikipedkii? Well because, as I gave the examples, there are many articles with no sources, except outside links to several web sites and I have not seen any discussion on their notability. Sincerely,--WlaKom (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you seem to be saying we will delete the actual parish, but it will still exist. There will simply be no article on Wikipedia on it. Abductive (reasoning) 02:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. School it sponsors was on tv recently. Having ssid that, these parishes are all stub articles and really shouldn't subjected to such close scrutiny without more details, which they clearly need. Churches/parish communities with a building are automatically notable IMO.Student7 (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich, and create spinouts only as required. The information presented is definitely encyclopedic, but stylistically it makes more sense to collate it at a coarser resolution. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich, but I'm content with deleting it, too. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are 378 parishes in, for example, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, serving 2,363,000 people. Extrapolating from that, there are about 160,000 Roman Catholic parishes in the world, and presumbably a similar number of non-Catholic parishes. I also note that if we allow articles on non-notable parishes, we would then have to allow articles on every good-sized church, mosque and temple in the world, potentially adding millions of articles to Wikipedia, none of which would be of encyclopedic interest to anybody outside the local area. Abductive (reasoning) 03:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete only a single g news hit in an obscure local newspaper, and a couple of off hand notes in g books UltraMagnus^speak 20:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the least, merge into Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich.--Pink Bull (talk) 20:51, 13 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. No argument for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost sign[edit]

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

After pruning blog refs from this article, I notice that the other refs are personal websites, a Waymarking photo gallery, and one useful source.The article is full of original research and a good faith search for sources turned up nothing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since there are multiple books about ghost signs: [17], [18], plus lots of good results available at Google News: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is a valid subject and the abundance of sources as noted by previous editor—Chris!_c/t 01:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagalejo. Oreo Priest ^talk 04:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the article's originator, this naturally would be my inclination, but here's why: This is a known historic term for ads that have been preserved on brick and when attention is drawn to them the topic sometimes does come up. It is an occurrence that may be more American than anything, though. I am not sure. I will acknowledge that some of the sources or statements may be original research, but on the other hand there are news articles I've found as well that were added as refs. It would be a boon if there are any books that can add authoritative sourcing to the article. I do not see why the article topic itself should be deleted, though. If we prune back there still are sources out there that can be used; it just would be a very short article. I appreciate being notified of its AFD status by TenPoundHammer, but disagree that the article needs deletion. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 18:38, 10 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) 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridley's Family Markets[edit]

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

Only six hits on Google News, none of which are non-trivial. Fails WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another article I've forgotten about, yes it's just a local business--Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Keep per sources found below --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G7. Only other edits not by Caldor are trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I guess - strictly speaking it fails WP:N, so I guess that's the end of the matter. Seems a shame to get rid of a harmless article about a chain that almost certainly has some local notability, though. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (Note: I removed the G7 speedy deletion template because of the long existence of the article and the past attention by editors other than its original author.) Based on what I found in a quick web search, I believe that someone knowledgable about the region could find sources and build this into a decent article. I found a lot more than 6 hits in Google News, although I couldn't access most of the articles without subscribing to the newspaper or paying a fee. Most hits were from the Idaho Statesman. The articles were mostly about new stores opening and existing stores closing, but typically a business like this one will have received more in-depth coverage in regional media at some point. The company has stores in 4 U.S. states and says it employs about 600 people, so it appears to be regionally important. I did add a reference to a business directory listing to the article. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Added: This is a link to a trade journal article about the company. It requires a subscription... --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Also, there's a national-interest news story involving Ridley's -- about store employees who were passing counterfeit bills (but I can't successfully insert the links here). --Orlady (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's only one secondary source so far, beyond the one that won't link. I don't think it's enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article actually cites two secondary sources now: the Manta.com and a short article in Supermarket News. The longer Supermarket News article that I found (noted above) requires a subscription. As for the counterfeiting story, here's a link that is not a Google cache and does not include formatting that gets scrambled when posted here: http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law-enforcement-corrections/corrections-parole/12931770-1.html In addition, ~~I found Supermarket News item~~ I found a story about Ridley's winning an award for Global Electronic Marketing and I added it to the article. --Orlady (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't quite establish its notability. Keep working. Also it's in danger of reading like an advertisement. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike 19:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence of notability established by Orlady. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. A 15-store chain seems significant in terms of wikipedia (3 locations would be a closer call -- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lee's_Marketplace). --Milowent (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - this one is brderline for me. There are only two sources referenced in the articel that support notability. And I found this article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 9 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) 10:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Pantoliano[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Has the usual directory entries (Fashion Model Directory, NYMag) but they only demonstrate the same brief, non-notable career lacking significant accomplishments that 98% of all models have. No significant coverage that I could find. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 18:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --Derek Andrews (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also fails WP:GNG as the media coverage is significantly lacking in any depth at all, including the foreign language pages I translated. Kevin (talk) 23:58, 11 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) 10:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fishman[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:Bio ShamWow (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at GS for Robert Fishman in the social anthropology area I find cites of 582, 335 ,110, 97, 86.. If these are credited to the correct Fishman (but I am not sure of this) then notability per WP:Prof #1 is attained easily. He also appears to be notable as an political activist. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

He was never more than an assistant professor. His work would hardly seem notable. His work as a political activist seems quite marginal and not significant enough to be included in Wikipedia.ShamWow (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline attack page with more about two combative incidents than about his academic career. WP:BIO and WP:BLP are more appropriate guidelines than WP:PROF for this material, but a Google news search found only minor local coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is attacking who? But if it is an attack then of course it should be Delete. Xxanthippe (talk).

The point seems to be to highlight his aggressive Zionist stance/actions. I'm not convinced that this constitutes an attack: Fishman might be proud of being characterized in this way and unconcerned that others might believe it reflects poorly on him. But notability seems doubtful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:59, 7 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. Icewedge (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gutteruncensored[edit]

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

Non-notable blog. References either nowhere mention "Gutteruncensored", or are links to the blog and its Facebook page. Delete. (Previously speedily deleted by me.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Speedied three times or something like that, two of which were successful. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable blog with references that are not always reliable. Airplaneman ^talk 20:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Any chance of protecting this from being recreated? --Odie5533 (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Per the above. Utterly nonnotable. Tim Song (talk) 04:53, 12 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 per G3 croûton. As it's a hoax, I didn't feel that letting the AFD run for the full period would have any merit. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 19:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Shah[edit]

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

Although this article seems superficially realistic, upon closer examination I have to think it's a hoax. The length of the career cited would seem to correspond to a date in the suggested history of 2017, which is impossible; I am unable to find any material online that indicates this person exists, let alone that he had this history (for instance, the British National Archives are silent on this person having won a DSO). If he does indeed exist, we need something in the way of reliable sources, which despite requests have not been provided. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete as hoax, ~~CSD G3~~ - apparently took his GCSEs before they existed, and will in ten years time graduate, before becoming Captain for 8 years of a vessel only launched four years ago? --Saalstin (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Struck speedy, as Accounting4Taste makes a good point re: permanent deletion--Saalstin (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Saalstin is more usefully familiar with GCSE's and other matters than I, for which thanks; I merely note that a completed AfD rather than a speedy will dispose of this article permanently, and since the hoax is superficially somewhat convincing and its creator seems determined, it may recur and go unnoticed. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (ec) I had declined an A7 speedy because of assertions of importance on the talk pages (I chalked the future graduation to a typo). However, I can't find any ghits for this person, or even a fictional character who has these accomplishments. Speedying as a hoax is fine with me, as is letting the AfD run its course.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:40, 5 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 per the G3 criterion. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 19:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hinkle's theorem[edit]

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

Contested prod. While this describes a true mathematical fact, there is no evidence that this fact is known as "Hinkle's theorem": the phrase does not show up at all in Google books nor Google scholar, and its only web hits from Google are for this page itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:21, 5 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) 10:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Canzler[edit]

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

I am completing this nomination on behalf of an IP editor, and express no view. Deletion reason supplied is:
"PROD removed by creator without improvement. Fails WP:ATHLETE. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE requirements. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a mediocre amateur athlete who shows no signs of going further and meeting the criteria of WP:ATHLETE. MacMed^talk _stalk 18:12, 5 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vulkie[edit]

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

Unreferenced non notable neologism. Would have speedied it, but it doesn't seem to fit any speedy categories. WuhWuzDat 15:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything that raises this above WP:NEOLOGISM. All ghits are unrelated to this context of the word. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 15:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike OTHER racial slurs this isn't notable, if it was it could be placed on that massive list of racial slurs we already have.--WngLdr34 (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, never heard of this one and I frankly suspect it's some mouthbreather trying to promote their clever slur "Hey ... they look like Vulcans!" Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 6 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nigh Pie[edit]

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

Delete, no ghits to back up claims. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as vandalism for "blatant and obvious misinformation". I've tagged it as such. andy (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this is blatant misinformation, but I can't find any sources to back up these claims. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 15:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blatant = "done openly and unashamedly" or "completely lacking in subtlety; very obvious". I'm a veggie so it was probably a lot more obvious to me than to carnivores! andy (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even as a veggie, how can you be sure that this term does not have at least some very limited use? I'm sure even in a small culture like vegetarians, there is a bit of diversity across the world in the terms that are used. To me, blatant misinformation is something that you can prove to be incorrect without a doubt. At any rate, the speedy has been declined. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 23:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and I'd like to consider myself an omnivore. :) JUJUTACULAR | TALK 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Vegetarianism isn't a culture, although most vegetarians of my acquaintance are quite cultured. Not small either, unless you count a subset such as left-handed veggies (like me). The only veggie pie with a proper name that's commonly eaten in Britain AFAIK is Homity pie, if we discount bastardisations of traditional meat pies that simply have the words "Vegetable" or "Cheese" in their names instead of "Steak" etc, but I'm prepared to admit that there may be others particularly in the far frozen North. Not Nigh Pie, though. andy (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm just saying this sounds more like WP:MADEUP than "misinformation". JUJUTACULAR | TALK 13:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it weren't obvious misinformation, it would fail WP:DICTIONARY and many other guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntler (talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - removed speedy tag. It's not vandalism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a neologism with nothing there. It sounds like somebody decided to come out and rename Shepherd's Pie. Andy, please assume that they aren't trying to spread misinformation - in this case, with all due modesty, my own analysis - and in fact, the consensus forming here - may be the simplest explanation. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 22:43, 5 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 to Funk carioca. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Créu[edit]

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

Non-notable meme. A Twitter "Trending-topic" doesn't turn a meme into an encyclopedic subject. Damiens.rf 15:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is another article which was included just because it was a trending topic on twitter. This one:Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. I believe this article should be deleted before Créu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.46.101 (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Memes are not subjects to be wikied about, I'd give it a month to see if its another gimick or if it has staying power.--Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I just want to say this is not simply a Twitter meme, but a sucessful "song" and slang. I don't know if notability still holds, but... Osias (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not serious I'm Brazilian and I'm ashamed with this article. It looks like an uncyclopedia article. Sorry, but I'm completely favor on article deletion. --Rcsilva83 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Given its foreign origin and subject matter it'll probably be difficult find an editor to get the article to a proper standard but still, I do think it's notable enough. The term is not simply a Twitter 'trending topic', the "Dança do Créu" was a big phenomenon in Brazil; I've heard of it and I'm not from the country. We have plenty of articles on much less famous memes; I think it would show a Western bias on Wikipedia if things like Hott4Hill can get an article whilst Créu gets deleted. MaesterTonberry (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a meme This is definitely not a meme, it's a very common slang in Brazil. It may not have encyclopedic relevance, so its definition could be placed in Wiktionary. --Danielzinho 18:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielzinho (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep What do you mean foreign? Wikipedia has no national basis, so nothing is "foreign" in any way. We did not include Créu because it was a meme (and it was indeed), but because it is culturally significant, as many other slangs. It was mainly restricted to one single nation, until last week. Network communication, not only twitter, helps to integrate cultures and subcultures – not to widen the gap – in the fields where the mainstream neglects. We have articles for Caralho, Banjee, Cunt, Rusty trombone and a number of other profanities. Why not keeping info on something which has made way into music, art, humour, media and popular speech? One more note: most votes here so fare were cast by Brazilian users. Shouldn't en.Wiki avoid being affected by the reductionist vices of the pt.Wiki? --Pedro Aguiar (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By 'foreign' I of course meant from a non-English speaking country and how that may unfairly prejudice the decision on its notability. MaesterTonberry (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep "Fuck" is not on AfD, why would "Créu" be? They mean the same thing when talking about sexual intercourse. Also, both articles begin with the same words. Stop this my-slang-is-better-than-yours thing and don't be stupid. The "ashamed" brazilians here are just pseudomoralists trying to look mature. (K8, Anonymous)
Keep I agree with MaesterTonberry, but I see no use in foreign (non-portuguese) languages. --FelipeVargasRigo (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm Brazilian, I'm not ashamed with this article, I don't think it looks like an uncyclopedia article. When I read it I found the text well written and clarifying, but let's be serious, this is not an encyclopedic article. Créu is a momentum slang, Dança do Créu is just a small sample of a much broader musical culture of funk music with sexual conotation. Comparisons with caralho, a centennial slang for penis, or other slangs, are ridiculous. --hdante (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant. And I'm also another ashamed brazilian... Fsolda (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Funk carioca. The slang is undoubtly relevant, and I believe it can be very useful to have an enclyclopedic explanation for it. However, although being this article well written, a complete article seems to be excessive. (I am not sure I have voting rights here; if not, my opinion can be seen as a suggestion) --Brandizzi (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In agreement with Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information I recommend the deletion. --189.93.31.74 (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second merging with Funk Carioca. Censorship is not acceptable in any culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acvb (talk • contribs) 17:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just like to emphasize once more that Créu is a slang, precedent and independent from any song or media product (and it does exist and is widely used, in spite of what was said below). The article centers on the word, not the meme nor the funk hit. It is clearly defined as an "onomatopoeic vulgar slang", not as a song lyrics or pun, and categorized accordingly. Please have that in mind. --83.61.14.34 (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The above was me, using a different browser which had no login cookie yet.--Pedro Aguiar (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No to delete, see portuguese profanity (this is term Créu don't exist), english profanity, etc, etc. Bruno Leonard (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yes, we créu. This fact belongs somewhere, so I added this to 2016_Summer_Olympics#Bidding: "Rejoicing Brazillians coined the phrase "Yes, we créu" (a play on U.S. President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign slogan) to celebrate the win."^[1]

^ "'Yes We Créu': o hit olímpico brasileiro no Twitter". O Estado de S. Paulo. October 2, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-08.

--Milowent (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. As a Brazilian I beg this article to be deleted for I. not being encyclopedic at all and II. bringing shame on my country (carioca funk is a sub-sub-culture, the worst thing this country has ever produced in terms of "music"). Capmo (talk) 02:48, 11 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Living in the limelight[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No verifiable indication that this series is in production or that Savage has any such project in the works. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any reliable sources which would establish the subject's notability or be used to verify the content of the article. The complete lack of coverage makes me think it could be a hoax. Guest9999 (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to indicate notability or indeed its existence; article can be recreated in three years if it ever comes to fruition. . . Wayne Riddock (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 22:50, 5 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. Copyvio problem appears to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit Fever (2009 film)[edit]

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

vanity article by the creator of the film, non notable, unreleased subject matter by non notable film maker WuhWuzDat 13:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are definitely reliable - USA Today, comics artist Jeffrey Brown's official website and Internet Movie Database.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/popcandy/post/2009/08/cool-movie-alert-rabbit-fever/1, Jeffrey Brown Comics: Rabbit Fever Blog entry by Jeffrey Brown about film's artwork, SJ Mercury News: http://www.mercurynews.com/homeandgarden/ci_13360930, SF Doc Fest: http://sfdocfest.bside.com/2009/films/rabbitfever_sfdocfest2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmchick143 (talk • contribs)

Keep Film has been completed and is pending release, and has received notice from significant secondary sources. WP:COI certainly pertains, but the article is still salvageable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient secondary sources to support the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a great article at the moment (and IMdb is not a reliable source for what it's worth) but there seems to have enough coverage by reliable sources to establish notability per the general notability criteria. There is coverage in USA Today and from Fox Business as well as the more local coverage. Guest9999 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete?There's another problem along with all the others - all of the lead text appears to be copyright violation / plagiarism of film promotional material. Google "impressively competitive and undeniably quirky competitors" and see what happens. Even the sentence under "Production Notes" that is cited to a reliable source appears to be based on text on the film's own website. I'm inclined to think the current article should be deleted and if a non-COI editor wants to resurrect the subject, they can go ahead. Deletion isn't salting. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Copyright violations can be addressed without needing to delete the entire article. A simple rewrite in less promotional terms is all that is required. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cleanup accomplished. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There were only two secondary sources, as the Fox Business one is a PR newswire copy, but I also found a primary sources to show an appearance at a film festival,[25] and another news story that was syndicated a few times:[26]. Just scrapes by on notability, as it has coverage in three reliable secondary sources. Fences&Windows 22:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:00, 11 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 to Michael Jackson. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's religion[edit]

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

I don't think there's enough content here that it not be merged into the main Michael Jackson article. To summarize: He was a JW when young but no longer (this is in the main article anyway). Some people reckon he was a Muslim; there is no evidence to support this; some people reckon he was a Christian; there is no evidence to support this; he may have adopted something more eclectic but there's no evidence to support that either. Even though all the people speculating are sourced, they're still speculation. Pseudomonas_(talk) 12:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Clearly notable and interesting, but belongs in the main article unless there is some big controversy over this. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably selectively merge to Michael Jackson where some of the material is already covered. I'm not convinced that this warrants a separate article but some of the reliably sourced information is relevant to the main topic and probably shouldn't be lost. Guest9999 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't speculate. For example, it says that while he demonstrated "interest in different faiths and beliefs (including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Kabbalah and the teachings of Deepak Chopra). There is no evidence that he adopted the one particular belief system, or joined a particular religious denomination."

Mention was made of his former faith as a Jehovah's Witness simply because this article deals with his religious beliefs and isn't a part of the main Michael Jackson article.

It is separate from the main article only because this "issue" of his beliefs has become a significant and topical source of discussion online. Putting it in the main Michael Jackson article may detract from the important things already in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robnow (talk • contribs) 02:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is precedent for separate articles of this sort (for example Charles Darwin's views on religion) for famous figures (often split off per WP:SUMMARY), and I think there might be enough detail here to justify keeping it as a separate article. That is to say more detail than you would want to cover in the main article. Most of it is well enough sourced, but I stuck one citation needed flag on part about his later interest in various religions. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It's a good article, but more people will find their way to it if it's inside the main Jackson article. Also, the discussion is not long enough that it will overwhelm or distort the Jackson article. -SpaceMoose (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article. I know we have other subarticles such as Michael Jackson's health and appearance but I don't think there's a comparable amount of information out there to sustain a separate article on his religion, especially as he never made any public comment one way or the other about the Islam issue. It may be a topic of discussion on internet forums now but is it really notable enough in the long run?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But do not Merge Article is good on the topic. The MJ article is too long and loads very slowly. Having sub-articles like this one is better than having to cut good material out of the main article. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There simply aren't enough reliable sources on the subject and what is notable is already in the main bio entry. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect What is known of his beliefs is in the main boigraphy. The rest is rumour and speculation. Pyrrhus16 13:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per Pyrrhus16. Alan16 (talk) 06:24, 12 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 deleted (CSD A7) by Will Beback. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 02:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owat Boys[edit]

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

By the author's own explanation, the purpose of this article is to promote the group. Even with the many "references" and external links given, there is no evidence that the group is notable or that it even exists. Materials written in 1965, 1582, 1972, 1846, 1990, and 1984, along with materials about such periods as 1565-1615 or 1300-1965 or 1571-1898 or pre-Hispanic times, certainly can't serve as references about a group that didn't exist until 1991. The pages to which the external links point say nothing about a group called "Owat Boys"; what does an article about the Dominican Republic have to do with this Filipino group, for heaven's sake? There are no substantive Google hits either. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the "historic" references were a copy-and-paste job from the article on the corresponding suburb of Manila, Tondo, despite being irrelevant and not mentioning this group. The "Dominican" links and the one to the University of Technology, Iraq were probably added because of the claimed links of group members to that country and university, respectively, but again they don't reference the article. Might be speedied as an article on a group without even a credible claim to notability. Was prodded, prod removed by author. Huon (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, I was the one who originally decided to give the author a chance and only added a couple of maintenance tags. I forgot that speedy hadn't already been attempted! So I've just now added a speedy deletion tag. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update This article has been speedily deleted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:53, 6 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. Tone 15:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Vespas[edit]

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

'delete non notable band Mrltofd (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed; no releases, just a list of gigs; does not meet the notability guideline. Inappropriate tone: The Vespas are a small town band thats, going places. They, are are, they? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no indication of notability in the article. Shadowjams (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an unsigned band with no coverage in reliable sources. Their main success has been winning a local radio contest to gain some airplay and are currently in a battle of the bands contest. -- Whpq (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an unsigned band , who has headlined a festival, has won numerous competitions, has been played on notable (enough to be on wikipedia) local (central scotland - big area) radio station l107, and has travelled across the uk, has had a review in YRock notable magazine as stated in guidelines. -- Craigster92 (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC) — Craigster92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - I don't see how this meets our guidelines. There's an assertion that they have headlined a festival. But the festival is not named nor is there any sourcing to verify this. By the way, headlining a festival is not going to establish notability if the festival itself is not notable. Winning numerous competitions is not notable unless the competitions themselves are significant. Their airplay came from winning a contest according to the article, so it is more in the way of a prize rather than establishing notability. But in any event, some airplay on a single station isn't going to establish notability. Finally, we have the review in Yrock. According to their website, "YRock is a music promotions and development company which works with a wide range of musicians and artists at all levels. YRock runs gigs, workshops, and promotions across the UK whilst providing online reviews, support, and feedback via this website." Material from a promotion company doesn't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 8 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) 10:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top Fans[edit]

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

delete non notable startup company Mrltofd (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What weak claims of notability there are don't satisfy WP:BAND. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not notable RT | Talk 19:17, 5 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 schools in Tower Hamlets. There appears to be nothing to merge here, so I'm simply redirecting the article. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Globe Primary School[edit]

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

This primary school article was in a very poor state before I stubbed it down. I checked online for sources that might show notability, but to no avail. I don't believe it meets notability requirements. Aiken's drum (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of schools in Tower Hamlets. The article has been up since June, so it has stayed up well past the typical waiting period for nomination. Every once in awhile, we see a primary/elementary school article that might be part of a class project on learning how Wikipedia works, and custom is to let it stay up for a week while the lesson plan runs its course, and then to nominate it. The usual practice is to merge this to an article about the school district or the locality where the school stands. I'm sure someone will probably see some notability in the statement that the school has been in existence "since 1874". Even if true (and I have my doubts that this has been in continuing existence that long), that in and of itself is not notable. Hard to find anything showing notability, although the search is complicated by the fact that the school lives in the shadow of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre close by. Mandsford (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My understanding is that high schools, and perhaps primary schools as well, as considered inherently notable. I can't find any specific policy on this point, but that's what I recall. If I'm wrong on this, I'll certainly reconsider. This is an old school (1874), and that alone gives me pause.Merge. Given the general practice cited below, and the lack of a demonstration of notability, I'm changing my vote to merge. However, given the age of the school, it is possible that notability can be demonstrated. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The general understanding is that high schools (i.e., those that confer a diploma) are considered inherently notable. Primary and middle schools are not considered worthy of an article of their own, and are usually merged. Difficult to find, but it's summarized in WP:OUTCOMES#Education. Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me toward that. I'm changing my "vote" to merge.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of schools in Tower Hamlets per established practice. TerriersFan (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 6 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. WP:SNOW Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC) 01:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam mowafi[edit]

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

This article has been back and forth between PROD and speedy nominations, so this is the most appropriate place to determine it's suitability as a subject.

In my opinion, this person is known only for the consumer issues surrounding his company/product, and so falls under WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Strictly "one-off" fame. Nothing that would meet the general requirements for notability. Favonian (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cleaned the history to remove unnecessary negative revisions but the restored content fails A7 because of BBC sources (although one editor, who is probably affiliated with the subject, keeps changing the article to a source-free version), so I had tagged it for PROD. It's a case of WP:BLP1E which no further notability except that incident. Regards So Why 10:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Might as well be speedied. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be inclined to delete it as a G7, per "... yr going to remove this so you might as well delete the page because your all fckin assholes!"[27] I suppose it could be questioned whether the deletion request was in "good faith", but the way I see it, the author realizes the article is inappropriate and should be deleted. decltype (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I entertained this thought as well but the author then went on to restore the content again, which means that even if this was a good faith deletion request, we have to assume that they have retracted it. Regards So Why 12:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete No sources, needs a rewrite, if the opriginal publisher wants a new one, they can cite some more things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WngLdr34 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 5 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 Withdrawn. I missed the fact that there was an obvious merge target. Black Kite 15:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FF-6 TIN Cod[edit]

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

Another non-notable fictional weapon. I'm fairly sure that PRODding this piece of unsourced plot summary would be removed, so AfD it is. Black Kite 07:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 10:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of Mobile Suit Gundam mechanics#FF-6 TIN Cod. This shouldn't take an AfD to redirect to the most obvious target. Since the list already contains the information, there is nothing to merge. —Farix (t | c) 10:55, 5 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, default to merge. That sounds a bit more dramatic than what actually happened here. In short, no one in this discussion thinks that the article should be kept, but there is no clear consensus between merge and delete. Therefore, I have closed it in favor of the option that preserves the content. Merge discussions need to determine the proper target quickly, however.Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMS-119 Geara Doga[edit]

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

Unsourced piece of plot summary about non-notable fictional weapons. There are a lot of these in the 300+ articles we have about this subject, but a mass nom is rarely helpful. Black Kite 07:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not sure exactly what to do with mobile weapons that appear in just one film. There aren't enough to create a separate list of mobile weapons, but including them into the main article will bee too much. Except for maybe three or four machines, the rest of the mobile suits are cannon folder and don't have any significance in the series. And this is one such cannon folder weapon. —Farix (t | c) 15:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (t | c) 15:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the list of mobile suit mechanics, problem solved. --WngLdr34 (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no singular list of mobile suits. Each of the TV series have their own separate lists and a combine list is just too big. —Farix (t | c) 16:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment then Merge it into the one for CCA/early UC, since this isn't Formula era UC.--Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, there are no such lists. —Farix (t | c) 16:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds like a reason to create one, at least for that limited segment. ***Quasirandom (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There just aren't enough mobile weapons in CCA to justify a separate list. —Farix (t | c) 17:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I had enough supporters I'd make a List of CCA era Mobile Units, but it would be mostly redirects to GM, Jeagan and Nu. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of now, I'd support merging it into MS-06 Zaku II--Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geara Doga is not the same weapon as the Zaku II. That's like saying that the M4 Sherman and the M46 Patton tanks are the same tank. —Farix (t | c) 17:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, they are of the same general MS family, sort of like how MK-2 is still a Gundam but at this point it doesn't use the best armor of RX-79-2 or Zeta. Its a clear decendant of the Zaku, like how the Jeagan is a clear decendant of the GM family. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam: Char's Counterattack. If, as Farix states above, this is a cannon fodder weapon (never having seen the film, I can't judge this for myself), then its role in the film can be summed up in the film's plot summary. No other in-universe info should be needed here, and any production/reception info that may exist would be better off in the film's production/reception sections (minding WP:UNDUE, of course). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge This is certainly not worth an article. The default way of handling should be to merge. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and hence unverifiable, per WP:V. Unverifiable content should not be merged. Sandstein 19:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and unsourced. If merged, since there is no information that can be attributed to secondary sources, the merge should consist of a redirect only. Abductive (reasoning) 02:58, 13 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. — Jake Wartenberg 21:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mudvayne fifth studio album[edit]

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

per WP:CRYSTAL. We do not even know if this album will be notable yet. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Future album with no significant coverage. Name and track listing not yet known. 7 06:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mudvayne per WP:MUSIC's "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release." Sole source has a band member saying "There's still no title for it yet, and we have no idea when we are putting it out ... no idea what's going on with it. This will come out whenever it comes out." --Stormie (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. I think that the statement quoted above proves that there's nothing sufficiently sourced to merge. Tim Song (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per both Wp:HAMMER and the quote in Stormie's rationale. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stormie's quote and WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the WP:HAMMER strikes again—no title, no track list, no release date. Cliff smith ^talk 16:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm calling WP:SNOW. Oh, yeah, WP:HAMMER, too. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:56, 5 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 since the article is well-sourced and meets the requirements of WP:BLP policy to meet WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Significant objections to deletion have been raised, since the incidents are covered in printed books, not merely newspapers, which according to many participants makes the event more than a mere news story. Whether this is a ONEEVENT matter is also unclear since there is a string of events, not just a single incident, even though they are all related. The objections to deletion have not convinced everyone (indeed, the "vote tally" is 8-6 for deletion), but since they have some objective merit as they relate directly to the WP:GNG guideline, and significant support, I cannot read a rough consensus to delete here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Reed[edit]

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

This is basically another marginally or non-notable biography of a person who was convicted of petty crimes. I don't think being on America's Most Wanted is sufficient to warrant notability, especially that this is basically WP:ONEEVENT again (the 'one event' being her criminal activity). As User:Olz06 says on the talk page, " I do not see the point of this article being on wikipedia" - Alison ^❤ 03:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Nolamgm (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD is being debated by editors in an external forum.

Delete - per my own nom! - Alison ^❤ 04:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom, the WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E, delete as non notable. ++Lar: t/c 04:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject has received significant media coverage for her actions from reliable sources both inside and outside the United States. Perhaps WP:ONEEVENT needs to be more specific on cases like this?Hack (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry.

”

— WP:BLP1E

--129.21.129.100 (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E and failure to satisfy WP:N/CA#Perpetrators. Subject is not otherwise notable, and while interesting, this incident holds no historic significance. Lara 15:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for pretty much the same reasons as Miriam Sakewitz (AFD). This seems to fall afoul of WP:BIO and WP:ONEEVENT. I see no evidence that there has been any biographical coverage of this person in reliable third-party sources, as opposed to coverage of specific criminal activities of which she has been accused. Unless someone can show independent treatment of this person as a biographical subject, we should not do so, since that would violate the policy against original research. *** Crotalus *** 16:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Regards Huldra (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I hate to be contrary, but this was not a single crime, but a major crime spree, by one of the FBI's most wanted. I recall seeing the reports on TV. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I agree it is not the greatest article for WP but she does meet WP:BIO. If historical significance was our test for notability than we would not need WP:PORNBIO or WP:ATHLETE. Nolamgm (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that's why we have Wikipedia:Notability (criminal_acts)#Perpetrators, which is germane to this debate. In particular, "Perpetrators of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article. Perpetrator notability is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question" - Alison ^❤ 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as WP:BIO and WP:N/CA are basically reiterations of of WP:GNG, Wikipedia:Notability (criminal_acts)#Perpetrators is reiteration of WP:ONEEVENT. I do not beleive that WP:ONEEVENT should ever be a reason for deletion. WP:ONEEVENT is to ensure that a WP article focuses on the notable. I respect your nomination because I think you got the analysis right. The first question in any AfD should be WP:GNG. I think that this individual does meet the WP:GNG guideline because she "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." That is our guideline. (As an aside, if I was going by my own POV then I would say she was not notable.) WP:ONEEVENT, and more importantly in this case the policy of WP:BLP1E should only be used to make sure that otherwise non-notable individuals are not made notable because they took part in a singlenotable event. This article is not about a single event. The coverage of the individual is not about a single event. Nolamgm (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of people commit identity fraud, however, this one received international recognition and was featured on CBS's 48 Hours, AMW, and the Secret Service's Top 10 Most Wanted. She was also written about in a section about student load fraud in a book about identity theft:[28]. Therefore, the coverage appears to be significant and persistent enough to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and Wikipedia:N/CA and thus override WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E. [Since the criminal act(s) and the criminal are essentially one and the same here, I don't think perp section of WP:N/CA really applies.] I agree with Hack that certain guidelines need to be more specific on articles like this. Location (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also from Wikipedia:Notability (criminal_acts)#Perpetrators, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event." I would suggest the execution of the crime was reasonably unusual.Hack (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This subject has been the subject of significant coverage as per WP:GNG - 1) in the broadcast media; 2) in the electronic media; and 3) in print. The coverage focused both on the subject and the actions of the subject e.g. the chess playing, the plastic surgery and the subject's academic ability. This subject has also met the criteria The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual under Wikipedia:Notability (criminal_acts)#Perpetrators. It would appear WP:ONEEVENT, as it is currently written, does not preclude this subject from being notable as this is not one contiguous event, the subject's actions were a series of criminal acts over almost a decade, all of which were serious enough to be considered federal felonies.Hack (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Basically per Hack and Location; again here we are in a case of strong coverage by RS around several years for multiple events. Deletion is contrary to all guidelines. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's already getting into the history books so notability goes beyond news coverage, and that book does include biographical details. If this is kept this should be moved to something like Esther Reed (identity thief) and Esther Reed made into a redirect to the much more notable Esther de Berdt. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"History books"? She's being used as a case study in a criminology book. In context, this reference doesn't seem to support the subject's notability; it is just one example of identity theft chosen more or less at random. *** Crotalus *** 20:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was among the top 10 most wanted fugitives and received news coverage for multiple identity thefts, spanning at least 10 years. Not bad for being an example chosen "more or less at random". Being used as a remarkable case study, plus all the coverage makes her notable by every conceivable notability standard. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 21:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. BLP. 1E. 67.170.86.33 (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May you elaborate? She's been discussed extensively among years not only on news sources, but also on books on identity theft (thanks Phil Bridger). What do we need more for notability? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And please, for the love of God, do not move it to Esther Reed (identity thief) as was suggested above. MookieZ (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alison's well-reasoned proposal. Nothing to suggest this individual is notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - WP:BLP1E. 51 months in prison is enough punishment, there is not need to drag her through the mud with her own article. Recommending this AfD be courtesy blanked at conclusion. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:46, 12 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris mentillo[edit]

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

Biographical article about a music executive/minister/entrepreneur. The article has a lot of references but I am not certain whether any of them are independent reliable sources which are relevant to the subject. The article had been up for speedy deletion (which was contested), but I thought it would be useful to bring this to AfD so the claims in the article and its sources could be scrutinized by the community. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources can be found. Most of the sources I've found are from user-generated content only. The first page of Google hits is littered with Facebook, blog entries signed "Chris Mentillo Productions", autobiographical user-posted articles, etc. No Gnews hits. My talk page exchange with the creator of this article also raises a lot of red flags: when challenged on some of the biographical claims, the editor simply removed them, rather than try to back them up. Hairhorn (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this era of every person making a vanity page is terrible, just terrible. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References for the internet footnotes include social and business networking sites (e.g., Facebook and Linked In), as well as a plethora of press releases. A bit of peacockery in the article - article calls him a "mover & shaker". Which I'd be, if I drank enough coffee. I smell a conflict of interest - original author has only contributed to this article and that's it, and is a new account. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete article because although there may be some apparent discrepancies with this article, it should be left for further scrutiny to the public, so that the author, in due time can gather more resources to better add to the quality of the article. The living person's biblical information regarding his ministry work, is properly illustrated through adequate resources pertaining to the Attorney Generals Office --State of Nevada (a very reliable, notable, and worthy resource for inclusion). This only adds to my previous additional justification for perhaps why this article should be held without deletion, and at the very least, be held much longer for further scrutiny, for public oppinion. Let the records also indicate; to the public herein, that this article, which is currently be contested, is no other than a stub, and not a mainstream entry for inclusion, which means that this article should be giving ample amount of time to be placed for quality expansion. Therefore, these differential guidelines should then properly, and professionally apply herein. --Dr25 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC) (sock of article creator)[reply]
- Although the investigation indicates that Drwebnow is indeed another identity used by the article creator, I don't agree that his recommendation had to be struck. He didn't try to use two different identities in this same AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete blatant hoax as references do not mention subject of article. Mm40 (talk) 22:25, 10 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. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITT Visual Information Solutions[edit]

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

Article reads like an advertisement or a directory listing; even if the article were of an encyclopedic nature, the topic fails notability guidelines for organizations. Having many customers does not equate to "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" Ohspite (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is only a small subsidiary of ITT Corporation. Most of the results on Google News about ITT Visual Information Solutions are press releases by them or their partners ESRI.Ohspite (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Advertisement. Richard (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very large and well established company. Its hard to wade through all the foreign language articles and press releases in Google News, but there does appear to be some valid coverage. Icewedge (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Icewedge, there do seem to be plenty of sources out there (22 just in 2008). I don't think it reads too much like an advert personally either but it could do with more sources being added. Smartse (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the parent business ITT Corporation: provides data-analysis software used by scientists, engineers, researchers, and medical professionals, and as such seems unlikely to ever receive independent coverage in general-interest publications. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, substantial company. No need to merge to ITT Corporation, that conglomerate is so huge, info would get lost. If it reads too much like an ad, fix it. TJRC (talk) 21:21, 5 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come Right Back to You (Chris Richardson album)[edit]

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

This is an upcoming album that has no reliable sources for the name, the release date or the tracklisting of the album. This should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Sources provided in the article are either non-existent, first party blog and twitter and youtube videos to show tracks on the album. Up until a few days ago, the article was All Alone (Chris Richardson album) and the name/release date were changed without an explanation. So neither of the album titles nor either of the release dates had any reliable source to back them up. Aspects (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic example of the Hammer Law. Just way too early. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 18:45, 5 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Van Dyk[edit]

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

Apparent autobiography of non-notable person. Antipastor (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Zero GNEWS and no GHits of substance to support article. ttonyb (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References are mostly self-published, as are the book and film. Fails WP:Notability and WP:Creative. WWGB (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nominator, I must say I have tagged the article as an autobiography according to the creator's user name and content. But, although the article is well written, I don't see any reliable secondary sources asserting notability. Antipastor (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous independent sources on this biography page including 4guysfromrolla.com, cmu.edu, and wordpress.com. Notability comes from the breadth of the references. A reference is also made that the subject has been appointed to an official city government office/committee position, but as this is a very recent appointment an official supporting reference hasn't been posted by the city clerk. Regarding "GHits", you need to dig a little deeper and know where to look. Subject created pages dominate ranking because they aggregate content better than reference links. Also, many people have this name so this complicates the search engine results. Regarding self-publishing... this is done to preserve authors rights so material can be licensed under Creative Commons. Creative Commons publication is not compatible with the DYING traditional publishing industry. Finally, compliment about well written article is warmly accepted. --Robert.vandyk (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Clarification on self publishing: I think WWGB's concern (and mine btw) is rather that there are no secondary sources provided as references (not that the book/movie is self-published). Antipastor (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The wordpress site is most definitely a secondary source. I have no idea who wrote that. Thousands of people (according to Google statistics) have viewed the film. I believe I followed the neutrality "guidelines" and have read another story where a Wikipedia editor who uses her own name has clashed with obstinate editors. However, reading through the Notability guidelines I think arguing that the Basic Criteria is met (which calls for a significant secondary source), I would concede. Unless concurrence is that my "to-be-provided" source would meet this notability requirement, I will not further pursue trying to keep this article up at the present time. However, as an alternative to deletion I would suggest a Redirect to my User page (where the information can be copied and clearly seen to be an autobiography). Comments about precedence for this would be truly appreciated. --Robert.vandyk (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the three provided references mentioned above and the 1 "to-be-provided" reference, marssociety.org is a fifth independent source linked to this biography. --Robert.vandyk (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. www.cs.cmu.edu is a website that merely hosts your paper with no acknowledgement of notability; wordpress.com is a blogsite, which are generally considered unreliable. I await the significance of appointment to a "Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee" (to be provided). WWGB (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Future plans to self-publish a novel doesn't confer notability. Upload film of one's road trip doesn't confer notability. The works don't have major media coverage (an obscure blog by the subject or subject's friends don't count), major awards, large sales, etc. --JamesAM (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reliable sources, and non-notable. Skinny87 (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity Piece, on Wikipedia? Weasel words, and WP:CRYSTALBALL violations? Cleave and smite. --WngLdr34 (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual creating a vanity article on themselves. Not much more to discuss really, surely? I think it is though worth clarifying to the creator of the page that notability is quite a bit more than just the individual or something they've done being mentioned once or twice on a couple of random websites. Also I'm not sure a redirect to the user page is appropriate either. --Nickhh (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject appears non-notable. Furthermore article has serious systemic PoV issues. Even if it were a notable subject I'd be proposing a 100% tear-down and rewrite. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this article's creator. Joe Chill (talk) 19:37, 5 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 have closed this early due to the appearance of WP:SNOW; this kind of article cannot technically classify for CSD, although it would never have a chance of receiving support at an AfD due to its intrinsic WP:NOT#HOWTO nature. The unanimous AfD agreement within 20 hours shows evidence of this. JamieS93 21:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to classify a plant.[edit]

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

Also Classifying plants which is the same content

This seems to be a well intentioned attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia. However it also appears to be some sort of original research. Sam Barsoom 01:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both Wikipedia is not a repository for how-to guides. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes a well-intended attempt indeed, but delete per Wikipedia is not a how-to manual and possible original research. Burningview ✉ 01:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Wikipedia is not a botany text. WWGB (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the author should be working over at http://www.wikihow.com. Abductive (reasoning) 03:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but try not to bite the head off the poor sap who wrote them We could easily have a prolific future contributor on our hands if someone could reach out to him/her. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 04:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what could be more welcoming and encouraging then calling a person a poor sap? Of course, I live in a nation where people are welcomed by a statue that refers to newcomers as "wretched refuse". Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, WP:NOT#HOWTO. Anna Lincoln (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uproot (by which I mean delete) due to Wp:NOTHOWTO. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A how to guide. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 5 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom during Yugoslav wars[edit]

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

From the opening sentence onwards, this page appears to be little more than a (very badly written) political essay masquerading as an encyclopedia article. There may be a valid article that could be written about the role of the UK in the Yugoslav wars, but this page is tbh beyond redemption. Yes, it has sources, and sets out some facts seemingly based on those sources, but 90% of the content is a superstructure of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAP. Assertions are made for example about the "active pro-Serbian policy" of the UK, "the real face" of British politics, Malcolm Rifkind having "Serbophile feelings", "bare fact[s]" etc etc. Arguably these could be weeded out through judicious editing, but I'm not sure what would be left, and in any event the near blanking of articles is of course discouraged. Nickhh (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in accordance with nomination. Buckshot06(prof) 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep- the sentences from the article might be essayistic (which can be easily fixed) but they are not my statements but from the sources. The sources are (I repeat it 5th time!!!) -books by Brittish historian (Brendan Simms), former Brittish soldiers, brittish parliament transcripts (Hansard) etc. ... all collected in 1 article together.There might be some conclusions but they are made by the authors (sources!)-not me--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone who actually reads through the article would accept that the conclusions and assertions in it are sourced (and could you explain for example exactly where and when Hansard might be drawing "conclusions" about anything at all?) What the page does is report one or two things the British did or didn't do, and report one or two quotes, and then construct a thesis by making apparent assumptions in its narrative voice about some supposedly over-arching "pro-Serbian" policy. And even if the conclusions that are being drawn were taken from a reliable source, they remain unattributed; nor is there any attempt to balance them with arguments from sources which might take a different view. I don't wish to be rude, but you do really need to have a look at what Wikipedia is meant to be, and read pretty much every policy and guideline relating to reliable sourcing, original research, neutrality and political advocacy. The poor quality of the writing and the overall POV nature of the page make editing it to improve it pretty much a lost cause, such that outright deletion remains the only option unless this sort of material gets to sit around for years left as it is.--Nickhh (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - This article has huge POV problems and is very very badly written, it appears some is being translated which can lead to complete inaccurate statements. Also an entire article on the UK during the Yugoslav wars is simply not needed when there are articles covering the NATO / UN operations there and the war in general. I fail to see why people need details like..

"According to the country politics all troops of British soldiers that were sent to field operations had 4-days briefing (eduction). That briefing was about the war itself, as well as about the history of the region"

or..

"British politics during Croatian war of independence was in best case controversial, but its real face will be shown during war in Bosnia and Herzegovina."

I think there is a clear political agenda behind this article, we have seen often the conflicts from this region spreading to other articles, this is one of those cases. Also just for comparison sake, this was a minor conflict for the United Kingdom, compare that to the war in Iraq where Britain at one stage had around 40,000 troops deployed, which is on a totally different scale to our involvement in the Yugoslav wars , and yet there doesnt appear to be a specific article on the UK during the Iraq war(only one on the military operation itself), so why is one needed for this? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a POV essay, and I doubt there's much to be salvaged; although many of the sources are notable and reliable, they have been used selectively in order to draw the conclusion that the UK government took a certain policy. The article isn't neutral and has a distinct POV, makes huge assumptions, and needs to go. Skinny87 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons stated above and more the "article" is a complete POV mess full of unsourced opinion and original research. I don't see how anybody could pick this apart to form a decent article even if one is possible, they would be better off starting from scratch. Guest9999 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, POV, biased, poor language. FenderMag (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: POV. Joe Chill (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems to me that the article was not intended to merely describe the subject, but rather to construct an indictment against the UK politics during Yugoslav Wars by simply compiling everything that could be used for that purpose. That's not only WP:POV, that's also WP:SYNTH, even if every individual fact is true. This is not incidental, and is therefore virtually impossible to "fix". GregorB (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you (or anybody else) considers this article to be indictment you are free to write the defense.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but this would make the article into a debate, which is barely any better, and is not how this is supposed to work. GregorB (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - not a debate! you can just offer another opinion that contradicts to the ones given by me and my sources.All the existing evidence support the story about active pro-Serbian policy during Yugoslav warsAñtó| Àntó (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, we have a couple of sourced facts - for example that the UK did not bomb Serbian forces (at least in the early stage of the wars), and that it backed the arms embargo against all sides to the conflict. Then, out of nowhere, we have the very bold assertion - which is entirely unsupported, but which permeates the entire article - that the UK had "an active pro-Serbian policy". Again, Wikipedia is not the place for you or anyone else to conduct original research, nor is it some kind of online court where opposing random theories - or in your own words "stories" - are put to the test via an "indictment" and a "defence". --Nickhh (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nickhh PRODUCER (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Just for the record-couplee questions if you can answer them ( if you think than article is just (my) POV ):

Do you deny any of the statements cited?-give counter-proofs
Can you find any sources whichj contradict to the statements?

The article style might be essay (which can be fixed) but the facts are beyond the issue. I think it is more important the content (facts) rather than form.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Best example is comparison to British (more than obvious) pro-German politics during Sudeti crisis--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try crafting an appropriate, short addition to Foreign relations of the United Kingdom in your userspace then for later addition. Buckshot06(prof) 21:21, 9 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffmann-Zeller theorem[edit]

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

Yet another hoax article created by a scumbag sockpuppet. Dr. Meh 00:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 29 ghits, probably all a loop from Wikipedia. Question: if this is a hoax, why not tag as such for speedy delete?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:HOAX--WngLdr34 (talk) 16:08, 5 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 Operation Upshot-Knothole. — Jake Wartenberg 21:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upshot-Knothole Badger[edit]

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

Non-notable bomb test Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has one of the most widely used explosion images on the internet. ConCompS (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has one of the most widely used explosion images on the internet, Any atomic explosion is notable in my view. Could be listified or merged into an article on the US atomic test programme but until someone gets around to doing that it isn't doing any harm here.filceolaire (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Operation Upshot-Knothole. No independent notability is evident, and all information is already at the target page. The image has nothing to do with whether we need an article for this test. Sandstein 10:32, 4 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) 00:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whatever the outcome of the debate, shouldn't Upshot-Knothole Dixie, Upshot-Knothole Simon, Upshot-Knothole Harry, and Upshot-Knothole Grable be treated likewise? --Lambiam 01:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with most of these stubs, but Upshot-Knothole Grable seems to be notable, as the first artillery-fired atomic projectile (AFAP). The article itself has considerable content and even some references. --Derek Andrews (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge + Delete: To the mother article, if the image is what makes this article so important, just make sure that is merged as well. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the image is already there. The only information that is not is the geo coordinates, and they have no citation.--Derek Andrews (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:Sandstein--Derek Andrews (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article also states that Badger was a tower shot as opposed to artillery or underground or whatever. Understanding accrued to science as a result of the test is probably best treated at the series article, as it tends to come as cross sections and hydronymics parameters were refined. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Operation Upshot-Knothole. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:12, 11 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. — Jake Wartenberg 21:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Apostles (Acid Jazz)[edit]

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

New references still don't satisfy notability per WP:N Jrod2 (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging into John Dutton (composer), although this article is also nominated for deletion. Some sources say that Dutton was originally signed to the label as The Apostles. Cjc13 (talk) 10:54, 27 September 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) 00:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The notability of the subject and the suitability for a merge may be related to this still open AFD so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cjc13 - both articles are sourceable, but are really marginally notable. I'd like to know how much the group or Dutton have toured per WP:BAND. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a band among hundreds of thousands. WP is not a vehicle for promotion. Jrod2 (talk) 12:23, 8 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 to Game Blender. — Jake Wartenberg 21:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blender game engine[edit]

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

The only sources are a self-published wiki, and the article is structured like an advertisement. Mm40 (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established, article is an advertisement. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same thing as Game Blender, isn't it? Either redirect there or merge both to Blender (software). As a subcomponent of a very notable software package, it should at least have a mention in the parent (already present) and a redirect to discourage recreation. —Korath (Talk) 18:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I dont really see why there are 3 articles for the same thing. Merge. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:09, 29 September 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) 00:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Game Blender. Note that that article is currently tagged for notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect -- the engine is a subcomponent of Blender (software). HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:10, 5 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Spungel[edit]

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

Hoax article created by a disruptive scumbag sockpuppet. Dr. Meh 00:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a hoax as per nom. Some of the sources are available on Google Books, yet a search for the person's name returns no hits indicating that the name does not appear in the reference. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a hoax indeed. Konstock (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 5 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. — Jake Wartenberg 21:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Elena R. Enriquez[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. nothing in gnews, another variant I tried in gnews [29] turns up a mexican lady. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see also: Cynthia Roxas-Del Castillo and Maria Liza A. Lopez-Rosario, both lawyers at the same law firm: Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc and De Los Angeles. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 07:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But those people are notable for other things besides working for this law practice.filceolaire (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a notable person --Karljoos (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 September 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, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never asserts notability, and in fact is teetering on the edge of the criteria for an A7. Seems to be a personal page/resume for a non-notable person. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:38, 5 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. JForget 23:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Wong Yuan Lee[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO , nothing in gnews [30], claim for notability comes under WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 00:15, 29 September 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, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--Derek Andrews (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads like a piece meant to promote him, delete per OP and borderline vanity piece. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 22:59, 5 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. — Jake Wartenberg 21:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Saw This Coming[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet the notability requirements set forth at WP:Band. The band does not appear to have garnered any third party attention, its appearances and fame appear to be entirely local, and its one EP album is self-published. JohnInDC (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Local fame? I can't even find that. Delete. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NN. No mainstream album/single/video. - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 21:21, 28 September 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, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Andrews (talk • contribs)
I saw this deletion coming. Delete nothing here satisfies wp:music. why was this relisted? Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:48, 9 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Atlas Reserves[edit]

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

This football club appears to be non-notable. There doesn't appear to be any guideline for teams other than "significant coverage in independent reliable sources", which this team doesn't have. The few mentions of it in news articles I have found to not come close to the "significant coverage" criterion, which is explicitly embraced at WP:ORG#Primary Criteria. ^Bongo_matic 14:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think these articles should considered to be deleted too:Estudiantes Tecos Reserves and Indios de Ciudad Juárez Reserves, there similar to the article F.C. Atlas Reserves. Black 'n Red 16:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found another article that is similar:Club Deportivo Guadalajara Reserves. Black 'n Red 04:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:08, 28 September 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, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is useful into the corresponding parent team articles. Then delete. - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 03:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge and delete is not an option; the closest alternative is merge and redirect. -- Big Dom 16:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reserve teams for clubs in the rest of the world have articles (see Category:Reserve team football) - I know this is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I don't see why Mexico should be any different. Article could do with a tidy up to be honest though. Giant Snowman 10:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Normally only the major clubs of Europe have reserve and academy pages. Being that the F.C. Atlas reserve page seems fairly new I am more inclined to leave it to develop to know how much importance it has in the Mexican league and exports to Europe. But as such it has had time since 30 July of the page creation date. Also it isn't a new club it is just an extension of F.C. Atlas so the category Football (soccer) clubs established in 2009 should be removed. Unless it is going to register for professional league, which I can't see happening the article name would also need changing to more in lines with F.C. Atlas reserves and academy. There needs to be a lot more information added and developed out of it's current state. The state the article is in is more close to a deletion category at the moment. But I am sure with effort put in it can pass a few guidelines. Govvy (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the name has a total of 8 Google hits, and they all seem to have gotten the string from Wikipedia. Even a redirect is inappropriate in this instance, as the low number of Google hits means nobody in the whole world calls this entity by this name. Abductive (reasoning) 03:01, 13 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 to Scorpions discography#DVD & VHS. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Sting[edit]

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

The article has very little coverage on the internet. It is unclear to what exactly the article is referring to. The article is a stub and coverers very little information at all. It is also an orphan.--Coin945 (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 28 September 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, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is about a videocassette which apparently consists of a few music videos by the band Scorpions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's at least one more similar article (World Wide Live (video)). Redirecting to Scorpions discography#DVD & VHS might be appropriate if the article is deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that the official name of the article is actually "Love at First Sting". any objection is me changing the title of the article before commencing citing sources and so on?--Coin945 (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that certain? Love at First Sting was an album by Scorpions, but the video seems to have been titled just First Sting. [31] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ohh apologies, you might be right. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.--Coin945 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scorpions discography#DVD & VHS per Guest9999. The merge could consist just of putting the track list (only four songs) below the video's entry in the discography. Thus, no information would be lost. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:05, 9 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.

[1] "'Yes We Créu': o hit olímpico brasileiro no Twitter". O Estado de S. Paulo. October 2, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-08.

[1]