Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

< 22 August	24 August >

Guide to deletion

Centralized discussion

Proposals	Discussions	Recurring proposals
RFC on appropriate handling/removal of non-free images that breach WP:NFCC policy #9. RfC on the proposed cessation of selective delete (other than history merge fixes) and resulting changes to deletion policies, including the removal of a Revision Deletion criterion. Invitation to comment on candidates standing for 2012 Audit Subcommittee appointment RfC about whether "new messages" banner hoaxes should be prohibited RfC on how files from non-copyright states should be treated and used on WP Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive · talk · edit · history · watch

Purge server cache

1 Upcoming movies
2 David Albouy
3 Satanism (disambiguation)
4 List of films set in the future
5 Celebrity Big Brother 2010 (UK)
6 Shelene Atanacio
7 James Fraser (footballer)
8 John Jack Black
9 Primera Division de clubes de la promocion Campoalto 2013
10 Alfa-Tsentr
11 Dennis Baron
12 Momed Al Hawsawi
13 Shimmer (hardware)
14 BioMOBIUS
15 Shvoong
16 Something I Can Never Have
17 BIHF
18 Qiz (wrestler)
19 Comparison of BitTorrent sites
20 Interpretations of Fight Club
21 Shirley Strawn
22 Ahdade
23 Favorpals
24 Chia Jani
25 Dana Sterling
26 Ernesto Piedras
27 Samahang Kapatid
28 Dr. C. M. Agrawal
29 Part (haircut)
30 Supernatural (season 1)
31 NoLove
32 Baljaffray
33 Ecomarche
34 Écomarché
35 Tony Patterson
36 Asil training camp
37 Antonio Bryan
38 Ondicom
39 Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway
40 Playbackups
41 Noor Ahmed Pechuho
42 Family Guy and Philosophy: A Cure for the Petarded
43 An Untitled Story
44 EA portal
45 Brent Matthews
46 Tsuyoshi Shimamura
47 Miss Intercontinental
48 Podget
49 Matija "Dace" Pavlovic
50 Crowdspring
51 Story Of The Naga king
52 DJ Panic
53 The Kirby House
54 The Station (YouTube)
55 Bus Master-Transit Bus's Bus Gallery
56 The Gadget Maker
57 Pet First Aid
58 Saints in Methodism
59 Racism in early rock music
60 Kieran Kelly
61 Me Plus One (Annie song)
62 Eleven Eleven
63 List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman Cast and Crew
64 List of The Beautiful Life : TBL episodes
65 Sheila Gallagher
66 Freedom of Power Treaty
67 Dose Of Adolescence
68 Hector Zagal
69 Novotek
70 Usmene predaje u Bosni i Hercegovini
71 Johnny Hobo and The Freight Trains
72 Spare Change Records
73 Java Remote Desktop
74 Dear Jayne
75 Elizabeth Del Mar
76 Pumas (film)
77 Imno ng Cabuyao

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upcoming movies

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

The result was delete. And the title has been protected so only admins can recreate an article with the title "Upcoming movies".SilkTork *^YES! 00:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Upcoming movies

(Find sources: "Upcoming movies" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate lists of stuff; list is non-sourced. mhking (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete really. Clubmarx (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete and WP:SALT. The title alone is asking for a re-creation. DJ 23:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete & salt. WP:NOTDIR, WP:CRYSTAL. Totally unmaintainable list. Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification - the list as it stands is probably not crystal. But the name just invites crystalline additions. Tim Song (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete just an indiscriminate list, not encyclopedic material. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete As per A new name 2008 -- MARWAT 05:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTDIR — vvv^t 09:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per A new name 2008, and Wp:SALT as per DJ. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment So... welcome to AfD, something nobody has heard of until they've written an article. I appreciate that it's a new editor with a first contribution, and I think I understand what's envisioned (i.e., a list that people could use to tell, at a glance, the coming attractions). But there are a number of problems with this type of article, as described above. Even if there was information about the expected release date of these films, even if someone set out to amend the list as movies were released or announced, and even if one could keep tabs with the world's films, Wikipedia isn't a news service and it's not a directory. Keep contributing, it takes time to learn the rules. Mandsford (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments expressed. Sometimes we just get a little bit fatigued from those AfD discussions. BTW, from what I can gather from this user's talk, in the space of less than 30 minutes, he got (1) two CSD notices; (2) one AfD notice; (3) one (straight) level 3 warning; and (4) one final warning for (?) vandalizing one of his own creations (perhaps removing the CSD template?)? Whatever happened to WP:BITE? I'm not soft at warning vandals, but this seems too far. Tim Song (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with your concerns over how this new editor has been treated. He apparently created 3 articles, and within minutes 2 were speedied, this was sent to AfD, and he was issued a warning about being blocked for creating inappropriate content, without anyone apparently ever bothering to explain to him why it was inappropriate. He was then issued a "final" warning for vandalizing one of the articles he created, even though he apparently never had any prior vandalism warnings. This treatment appears to be way overboard. Deleting the articles is certainly appropriate, but the warnings - especially a final vandalism warning for a first offense - without apparent attempt at explanation seem troubling. Rlendog (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't blame the "final" warner. It's an automated warning from Huggle by someone doing RC Patrol, which automatically issues a level 4 warning when it detects a level 3 one. The problem is with the previous level 3 warning, which is semi-automated. That one should never have been issued IMO, or, at most, a level 1 warning would have been much, much better. I've tried to soften the blow on his talk page, but it seems that he's gone, and I can't really blame him, either. Tim Song (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Albouy

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] David Albouy

(Find sources: "David Albouy" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

It looks like a self-promotion webpage. The only possible claim to notability seems to be the Daron Acemoglu incident mentioned in the Research section. Discussing among each others is what academics do, so I don't think it warrants a separate entry for Albouy. CronopioFlotante (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete. ~~I have found this thread on an economics rumors webpage. It seems to confirm that~~ the notability criterion is not satisfied. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with David Eppstein in that the thread with anonymous posts I linked to in the previous comment is irrelevant. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Like most articles here on assistant professors, this seems to have been created too early in his career, creating more harm than good. I don't think a thread full of anonymous and unsubstantiated put-downs of Albouy has any relevance for our deliberations, but there's no evidence in the article here nor in the citation counts from Google scholar that his research has as yet had the impact necessary to pass WP:PROF #1. I'm pretty sure he doesn't pass any of the other criteria, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. WoS search confirms his CV: 1 publication (0 citations) – absolute no-go on WP:PROF #1. No other reasonable claim to notability. Agree with David Eppstein on the assistant professor articles and wish there would be some acceptable way to reduce the collective time spent by so many individuals on evaluating these. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC).
Delete on above findings. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Procedural relist — this seems never to have been properly listed in the first place, and it needs to be closed, but I participated in the discussion so I can't close it myself. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete Vow a clear cut CV pasted here. -- MARWAT 05:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Like Agricola44 I am suffering from deletion fatigue. Above recommendation to delete is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC).
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Location (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satanism (disambiguation)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 18:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Satanism (disambiguation)

(Find sources: "Satanism (disambiguation)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Only redirect pages link to this page. The Satanism article covers (and links to) all the variants and thus serves the function of disambiguation itself, making this page unnecessary. Cybercobra (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep and link to it from the main page. Then you don't have to muddle about for a link. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep any extra navigational help is useful for readers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete as no navigational aid added. Readers can get from the base name to the target article, no need to have another gate in the way. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Two Dab articles at AfD in two days is hopefully coincidence rather than a disturbing trend. Anarchangel (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Looks like a useful disambig. page.Biophys (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films set in the future

The result was no consensus. Valid arguments are made that this list likely to be permanently incomplete and borders on being indiscriminate. However, there is a counter-argument made that the list is still useful even if incomplete, and that its potential for indiscriminate inclusion can be fixed with regular editing, not wholesale deletion. The balance between the problems of excessive lists, and the potential usefulness of this list nonetheless, leads to no consensus either way - hence, a default to keep. ~ mazca ^talk 00:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of films set in the future

(Find sources: "List of films set in the future" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Delete. Where to start really? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this list will never be complete - there are millions of films and this will simply get too big and excessive if development continues. The future is also subjective; if a film is released on December 1st and is set on December 25th of the same year, does that mean that it is set in the future? Basically, this is pure listcruft and one of those articles that is so wrong that it's hard to establish a decent nomination. DJ 23:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete per DJ. We don't need a list for everything. If we have a list for films set in the future, will we also need a list of films set in the past? This list does not add to Wikipedia. ♥ichi 23:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That is called a Period Piece, and yes it would be nice if someone took the time to list all the major motion picture period pieces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cainxinth (talk • contribs) 02:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete: An indiscriminate list. Joe Chill (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Unmanageable, subjective inclusion criteria, etc. The nom sums it up well. Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep How is a film being set in the future a subjective criterion--if one actually looks at the article, it refers to films set in the future as viewed from the date of the film, and questions of interpretation are easy enough to deal with on the talk p. without postulating straw men. No list has to be complete. If limited to notable films with articles in Wikipedia it's as discriminating as anything else in the encyclopedia, and it won't be millions of notable films (and if it were, we could figure out a way to divide the list); Listcruft= I don't like it, but to not like this one you must dislike all lists in principle, and that's not our policy. It is indeed hard to give a decent nomination,as shown by the fact that none of the reasons given are correct. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the nomination:"The future is also subjective; if a film is released on December 1st and is set on December 25th of the same year, does that mean that it is set in the future?". And you think that every film should be put for discussion on the talk page? There are 1000000s of films set in the future, making this list unmanagable and redundant. Dividing the list? Into what? List of films set from 2000-2100 and so on? Still, there are just too many films. A category maybe, but not a list. DJ 01:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I read it. That's why I said "straw man": I don't think there actually is such a film, and if there were one, we could discuss it on the talk page. I think 99% of the films won't call for discussion--the Wikipedia articles will make things clear enough. I don't see any now on the list that are ambiguous, though there are a few red links to check for notability & if so, write the articles. At present we don't have anywhere near 1 million films in Wikipedia, we have 60,359, I think about 1% of the regular releases ever made. If it were a million notable out of that 6 million, if we can handle the articles, we can certainly handle the lists! (but by some spot checking I think somewhat less than 10% of films are set in the future, even counting all sci-fi in that category--there are currently about 1150 of sci fi films Wikipedia) By all means make a category--Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. The advantage of a category is once the articles are marked, it's self-maintaining; the advantage of a list is that it facilitates browsing--which is one key purpose of an encyclopedia-- and it can indicate more about the films--here it indicates the date of the film and the date of the setting--more could be done, in fact--it could be made sortable. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep What is with you people? Don't you like movies about the future? Blade Runner and 2001 are defined by the fact that they are set in the future. It's an interesting sub genre of science fiction and there is literally no other place on the internet cataloging it as completely as it is here. Believe me I've looked. Not IMDB, not AllMovieGuide, nowhere. There is a wiki list of films featuring aliens, robots, Godzilla, claymation, mental illness, Berlin, and gay bathhouses for pete's sake. Why not the future? And frankly I can't imagine anyone dim enough to not know what constitutes a film set in the future without the aid of a strict legal standard. --Cainxinth (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a tertiary source. If nobody else is cataloguing these films, we should not be the first. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete - I'm not sure how this wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff is supposed to work, but precisely how far into the future does a film need to be set to qualify as "set in the future"? 27 years? 3 years? 2 days? Does it mean we have to monitor this to remove any entry set in August 2009? What about 1984 (film), production of which took place during the spring 1984 window setting for the original book, written 36 years prior (which would have been set in the future at the time).

81.110.104.91 (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep I think its a decent effort and might help people like me who have a craze for Sci Fi. -- MARWAT 05:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And how? For instance, Star Wars is not included, presumably because it was set to have happened "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away". So we end up with a random group of films that, by sheer happenstance, characterized themselves as to have happened in the future instead of the distant past. Just like List of films set in the past will not help people who have a craze for history films (you have to put Star Wars in there, remember?), so this would be of little assistance to people with a craze for sci fi. Now, List of science fiction films is entirely another matter - and we already have the article, too! Tim Song (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep I think it's a great topic; "weak", because of the original research and original synthesis problems, possibly curable. There have been bibliographies on such subjects, such as the annual What Do I Read Next, or the Hey, It Could Happen!, and there are guides to sci-fi films where the setting is listed. I don't see a problem with understanding the basic criterion that the film's setting is a year that was still yet to come at the time the film was released (such as 1991's Freejack, which envisioned mental transfer and time scooping in the world of 2009 A.D.). A list of this nature is going to be long, of course, are regularly produced. And honestly, you can't guess at such things as when Robocop or The 6th Day are supposed to have taken place, since no date is mentioned. So to some extent, this may be timey-wimey-wibbly-wobbly (bibbidy-bobbidy-boo). I'm afraid that phrase is going to be stuck in my mind for the rest of the day. Mandsford (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
A good illustration of the problem: there are two characteristics we're looking at here. One is that of films which are set in a not-too-near future, where there is some clear distinction in technology (the replicants and off-world colonies of Blade Runner, for instance), which are those set upward of Twenty Minutes Into The Future. These may or may not merit a list, depending on your opinion. There are films which are based solely on the basis of "what if ..." where some event happens in the near future, and examining the consequences of this. These are effectively set in the present day, and are more accurately classified as speculative than futuristic. Examples of this include Alien Nation, which is basically "Aliens land tomorrow, what happens next?" - a scenario humorously described as Next Sunday AD. Technically, Back to the Future was set in October 1985, well after its production schedule and four months after its release date. My opinion is that if a list must exist, the latter should be excluded, but then that itself would be an unmaintainable, subjective divide. Hence we have an incurable case. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep, all of Wikipedia will never be complete, yet here we are ... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- 404 Supporting argument not found. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I'm not a huge fan of lists, particularly those where the categories for inclusion are indistinct, but I agree with User:DGG's well-expressed and logical statements. This will be useful for browsing and is the kind of thing that new users are pleased to find; problems about a specific film can easily be expressed on a talk page and will add to people's understanding of the specific film. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete as indiscriminate list. Also, "future" is a bit inaccurate, as all movies tell stories as they occur, so they would in fact take place in the present, even if the setting is 2150. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. So every movie is set in the present? What about 10,000 B.C.? I guess the title is just meant to throw us off the trail.--Cainxinth (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You're thinking of the film's story as if it were actual history and thus takes places in actual time. Stories occur in the present tense, (this even includes flashbacks and flash-forwards, since when we see them as the viewer they are presently happening). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cainxinth (talk • contribs) 13:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per DJ's comments. --LineofWisdom (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Generally, I consider the talk page on an individual article to be an enormous waste of time. However, if the article ends up getting kept as a no consensus, then I think it needs a serious overhaul, and people will probably want to talk about it. Mandsford (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep: The nominator had four basic arguments: 1. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: How is this list indiscriminate? 2. This list will never be complete - unless you have a crystal ball, you have no way of knowing that, also, what Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) said. 3. This list will become too big: Let's cross that bridge when we come to it, either by splitting it into sub-articles or something else; right now we're focusing on whether or not it belongs on Wikipedia. 4. The future is subjective: Nicely addressed by DGG. Cerebellum (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Big Brother 2010 (UK)

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity Big Brother 2010 (UK)

(Find sources: "Celebrity Big Brother 2010 (UK)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Delete. Unconfirmed TV series - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Complete lack of reliable sources to show that this will exist. (It almost 100% will, but WP:V should take the rule here). I also suggest a WP:SALT protection to prevent fans from re-creating, and I'm saying this as a member of WP:BIGBRO. DJ 22:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

- See also - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 11 UK. Dale is supporting Lisa Wallace to win Big Brother 2009 13:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom, crystal, RS, etc etc. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete It needs reliable main source, delete this page for now. --Dudejerome (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep cos it has sources and more can be added and it is going to happen it isnt made up. [1] already being talked about in austria—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.40.109.138 (talk)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, not enough RS yet Chzz ► 11:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Slightly too early Francium12 (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete and fully protect from re-creation until nearer the start of the show - If the series six (2009) article is anything to go by this page will regually get re-created and deleted again if this doesn't happen. Far too early for an article, it is badly sourced (Using twitter pages isn't acceptable really, some parts are unsourced). 12bigbrother12 (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete and fully protect from re-creation until nearer the start of the show plus similar article titles like Celebrity Big Brother (UK) 2010, Celebrity Big Brother 7 (UK) and Celebrity Big Brother (UK) 7. I have seen once one title is blocked these formats I listed will start up once the current (Celebrity Big Brother 2010 (UK)) is deleted and protected. Also until C4 announces a seventh celebrity edition this shouldn't be created. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 17:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

KEEP This source [2] CONFIRMS the series will go ahead so why cant there be a page for it now, it is only 4 months away, its not that long. 90.217.230.156 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep Another source to CONFIRM the series WILL go ahead. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.46.41 (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN - Single-purpose accounts. I notice that the following IPs (who all voted keep) have made contributions to BlackpoolKickboxer2008's sandbox -

BlackpoolKickboxer2008 is a regular editor to Big Brother-related articles. Dale is supporting Lisa Wallace to win Big Brother 2009 13:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Much as it pains me to argue so, keep - third paragraph of this article in The Guardian suggests the series is confirmed. CJPargeter (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Big Brother (UK)#Celebrity Big Brother and protect until December/January time when more information about the series will be available. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep per CJPargeter, The Guardian is a reliable source. Cerebellum (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Big Brother (UK)#Celebrity Big Brother until more sources surface. A passing mention in one news article is not enough to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelene Atanacio

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shelene Atanacio

(Find sources: "Shelene Atanacio" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Nonnotable actress, no independent sources. Also appears to be an autobiography (author is User:SheleneAtanacio). NawlinWiki (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete with no prejudice to re-creation if and when more sources come available. All I can find at the moment are press releases and showtimes. The only news source I was able to come up with was a name-check in a San Francisco Chronicle article about a prom fashion show. If the subject has a new film being made next year, perhaps there will be more information available for an article then? --☇Kateshortforbob _talk☄ 12:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Fraser (footballer) (2nd nomination)

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Black Kite and and Camw have convinced me that James Fraser passes WP:ATHLETE. Thank you both for your insightul comments (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] James Fraser (footballer)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/James Fraser (footballer)

Articles for deletion/James Fraser (footballer) (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: "James Fraser (footballer)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable football player. G4 speedy was declined because this is about a different person. I haven't been able to find any reliable sources about Fraser, and the team he played for is red-linked (likely non-notable), so I have brought this article to AfD. If someone could demonstrate how he passes WP:ATHLETE or provide third-party, reliable sources about this individual, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Whilst I am unsure about the professional status of the game in the 1890's, I presume that playing for one's country - even if only once - would pass the bar of notability. The SFA and RSSSF links (both reliable sources) - prove this. Black Kite 22:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel that this person's notable. I misread the part about him playing in the 1890s; I read it as 1990s. That would explain the lack of in-depth online sources. I'll leave this AfD open for a little longer to see if there are any comments about whether or not Fraser played professionally. Cunard (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Per the reasoning in Black Kite's comment. Even if the sport wasn't professional in the 1890s, an international appearance should be enough to satisfy the "highest amateur level of a sport" criteria of WP:Athlete, since 1891 was prior to the modern Olympic games starting. Camw (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Jack Black

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] John Jack Black

(Find sources: "John Jack Black" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Possible hoax. None of the sources appear to contain any information about a John or Jack Black. See The History of Montgomery Classis and History of the Canal System of the State of New York. SilkTork *^YES! 22:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Speedily, if possible. Location (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primera Division de clubes de la promocion Campoalto 2013

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Primera Division de clubes de la promocion Campoalto 2013

(Find sources: "Primera Division de clubes de la promocion Campoalto 2013" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable sports league. I have been unable to find any reliable sources about this topic. Cunard (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating the following article because it is part of this sports league:

Cunard (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - no such league exists in Paraguay, or if it does it's staggeringly non-notable. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I've also found sweet FA about this league or the club (apart from the fact that the club's name means Kangaroo in spanish) meaning that these fail WP:V. Even if they do exist, I get the feeling we're looking at a local five-a-side league here, or something of an equally non-notable ilk. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- That seems likely - I doubt there would be a team at a professional (or even semi-professional) level with a name that translates into English as "Nico and his Gang"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete both - if they do exist, then both the league and club are amazingly non-notable. Giant Snowman 11:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete non-notable team and league Spiderone 15:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete both Aside of strong smells of WP:HOAX and failing WP:N and WP:V, it is also a case of WP:CRYSTAL as a 2013 domestic league will not begin to announce its participants in 2009. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfa-Tsentr (2nd nomination)

The result was Delete

Consensus to delete appears to be clear here. Neither the notability nor the actual existence of this has been established during this AfD, as such, I am closing, and deleting the article in question. Questions or objections may be addressed to me at my talk page. — Ched : ? 23:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alfa-Tsentr

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alfa-Tsentr

Articles for deletion/Alfa-Tsentr (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: "Alfa-Tsentr" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The {{db-repost}} has declined by Lankiveil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) because the article is substantially different. Please let this discussion run the full 7 days.

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I have been unable to find any sources on Google News Archive to verify this company's notability. Cunard (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - That's because the company doesn't exist. It is fictional, which is why it was deleted the first time as a hoax. Other than that, there is no notability established outside of it's fictional world, hence, delete.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. If the game this is associated with is notable, then this could be made into a redirect to the main game page. But since the article doesn't make it clear what game it's talking about, I don't know where to redirect. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Though this is the sort of thing that HOAX is talking about (an article about the hoax, not perpetrating the hoax), it isn't notable and I don't think we need to help with their marketing. Lankiveil was correct to decline the speedy, though posting the speedy was understandable. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete per A7. It doesn't even say what game it's from. Evil saltine (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not A7 b/c it's not real. Fictional corporations are not subject to A7. Nonetheless, delete as blatantly nn. Tim Song (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep - It's part of the Junku Junsui ARG game, it should be on Wikipedia. It's like Umbrella Corporation or Nerv, but it form a part of an ARG Game, thanks. --Alv612 (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC) — Alv612 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. I don't think there is any verifiable information about this game, especially since it's an ARG which goes out of its way to be unverifiable (for example, by creating hoaxes to make their fictional world seem more real). The article is written almost entirely from an in-universe perspective, and there would be no way to rewrite it from a real-world perspective because the real world has no verifiable information about it. rspεεr (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment Unless a defensible sourced article on the game itself can be written quickly, this article obviously has no chance; even so, it would be hard to justify as a separate article. I would suggest a try at converting it into an article on the game--as far as I can tell there has not even been an attempt at writing one. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete The article is extremely relevant to the game itself, but the game itself has no article. In fact its debatable whether the game is of sufficient priority to merit an article right now. Especially considering the nature of the game makes it confusing and would mean the article would have to be constantly updated and verification for any information would be doubtful or sketchy at best. Of course the company doesn't exist so barring the game suddenly manifesting a good article on itself it ought to be swiftly deleted. Also: it's terribly written. I mean I had to stop three times just to be annoyed at grammar mistakes. --174.51.237.97 (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
As there's been nothing out-of-universe written about either the game or the in-universe company by reliable sources, I don't believe there is any choice but to delete the article. If future information becomes available, an article at Junku Junsui might be written, but right now there isn't actually anything known about the game. Perhaps after its conclusion more might surface. lifebaka++ 18:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Baron

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Baron

(Find sources: "Dennis Baron" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Article doesn't meet WP:PROF I dream of horses (T) @ 21:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Arxiloxos, sorry about the deletion thing! Total accident on my part, I'm new to this and didn't realize what I was doing. Anyhow, I've done some extra research and provided LOTS of sources that should prove that Baron is a prominent linguist. I've provided links to articles (NY Times, CNN, LA Times) that quote him as an expert source, links to TV and Radio interviews, and links to his own articles. I've also provided other sources for bio information and links to his Amicus brief. Of course, it's still a work in progress but I don't understand why the person lobbying for deletion would say that Baron isn't qualified for an entry. In fact, I actually found out that the the wikipedia article for the pronoun "She" already quoted him!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturnalia9 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got to go with keep on this article. This is a full professor at a major university who has written a substantial number of books, many of which appear moderately highly-cited, and to have a biography on him seems to me to add to the sum of human knowledge. I think if WP:PROF means we should exclude him, then it's WP:PROF that's wrong. These guidelines should be used to eliminate spam, marketing material, and fancruft, not the biographies of genuine scholars.
I agree that the article requires a great deal more reliable sources and a great deal fewer summaries of his books; if the books are notable, write articles about them. This article should focus on Baron's biography rather than his writings. But I feel this is best solved by ordinary editing rather than the articles for deletion process, and I would respectfully ask the nominator to reconsider whether it is really necessary to invoke AfD here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep per User:S Marshall. Article needs revision, and the creator of this article is not doing the discussion any favors by unilaterally deleting the AfD notice from the article (I've put it back) but quick Googling suggests that this guy is a well-recognized linguist who has written a bunch of notable stuff.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of gnews hits, tellingly, even with a common seeming name, they seem to be mainly relevant to him. Gscholar cites : 169, 138, 38 ... , 560 gbooks hits, meets wp:prof under several criteria.John Z (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep For one thing, no reason for deletion was given. A person who has written four books published by Yale Univ. Press and Oxford University Press would be notable from that alone as an author--there are undoubrtedly reviews, and they should be added, , which would be formal sources for proving the notability as an author. A full professor at the U. Illinois is reasonably certain to be notable, for that is a very distinguished research university of the highest level, and I trust them to know whom to appoint at that level. Notability is determined by one's peers, and they have determined it better than we can. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. I found four journal reviews each of two of his books, and one review of another book, by searching for the book title at crossref.org. But I couldn't find reviews of the other books. Usually this is more effective at digging up reviews of academic books, so I am a little surprised by the relatively low number of reviews I could find. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep for reasons above, also healthy hits and cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC).
I would like to withdraw nomination per WP:SNOWBALL. --I dream of horses (T) @ 18:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Momed Al Hawsawi

The result was delete. Tone 20:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Momed Al Hawsawi

(Find sources: "Momed Al Hawsawi" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This article was originally tagged as {{db-hoax}}, but it isn't a blatant one. Because this article has existed since April 2008, I see no harm in having a full discussion about it. I have been unable to find any reliable sources about this athlete, so this article should be deleted per WP:BLP and WP:V. Cunard (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete I too, have not found any sources about this article. Any useful information is not factual. There is no Al Hawsawi on Saudi Arabia's 2002 FIFA World Cup squad or was ever a squad member of LDU Quito (or possibly Al Hilal). Seems like a lot of the information in this article made up, possibly indicating that this person never existed. Digirami (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete It appears to be a hoax and someone who's played for LDU de Quito and in the 2002 World Cup (playing 8 matches which is actually impossible) would have some news coverage Spiderone 08:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete - definitely a hoax, albeit not a blatant one. FIFA, which has player records for every player to play in World Cup Qualifying, has diddly-squat for this guy - strange, isn't it? Giant Snowman 08:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shimmer (hardware)

The result was Speedy Delete as Copyvio. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shimmer (hardware)

(Find sources: "Shimmer" BioMOBIUS – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This article has been tagged for notability for over a year, but no sources have been added. As you can see from the {{find sources}} above (best way I could think of to narrow down the false positives), it has received essentially no coverage at all. ^Bongo_matic 21:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.intel.com/healthcare/research/portfolio.htm and so tagged. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BioMOBIUS

The result was delete. Insufficient substantial coverage to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 00:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] BioMOBIUS

(Find sources: "BioMOBIUS" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This article has been tagged for notability for nearly a year, but no sources have been added. As you can see from the {{find sources}} above, it has received essentially no news coverage, and the hits in the web do not lead to an inference of any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. ^Bongo_matic 20:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete I can find no references at all to this in PubMed. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
CommentWith all due respect, DGG, medical researchers probably leave this to the department ITs, no?

I appreciate that many subjects get many more hits, but 9,550 seems like rather a lot of hits to be called 'essentially no news coverage', without more qualification than 'essentially' already is. Anarchangel (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shvoong

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shvoong

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}}

(Find sources: "Shvoong" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No independent sources cited to demonstrate that this website meets the notability standards of WP:WEB. Author removed prod tag, which specifically cited lack of sources, without adding any. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Only significant coverage is in non-reliable sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Weak delete - I don't think the reviews listed constitute notability. Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, those reviews are from user-generated sites and are thus not RSes. I've removed them from the article. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete No primary sources. Not notable. Clubmarx (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete possible promotion of a website here. And Wikipedia is not a place to create articles on websites unless they are proven by reliable third party references to be notable. And while there are indeed inline citations provided in the article for references (as well as an external link to the website) it does not have enough of the reliable third party references required in order to pass Wikipedia's standards for the article inclusion of a website.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 02:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Strightforward {{db-web}} case. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Spam, I'm 99% sure that the one source, Mr Sexton, is primary, but can't find 'proof' to say speedy; see for e.g. http://www.ehow (This link was editfiltered out, hence splitting) filteredcom/how_4965518_write-abstracts-home-earn-money.html, which is why I said 'spam'. Chzz ► 11:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete until notability and proof of notability is established. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Do not Delete because this article is quite the same kind of article and has almost the same type and reliability of sources and references as the article of HubPages and Squidoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.195.12.106 (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note: Per SPI referenced below, 201.195.12.106 is a confirmed open proxy. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Do not Delete this article about Shvoong because it has sources, references and more information from the Internet. Those links which are in the references of the article regarding articles written by Timothy Sexton are completely good sources. In fact, those are realiable sources. It could be necessary to say that Mr. Sexton is one of the most important writers on the Internet. Just look at this and you will see he is really important. Shvoong.com is a Great Resource for Readers, Students and Freelance Writers. Look the box at the right on that article.Fabrifago — Fabrifago (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- You most likely have the wrong link there. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Do Not Delete The article has primary sources. It is notable. Shvoong is available on 34 languages. It has a traffic rank on Alexa.com of 2500 approximately. Elwikiseñor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC). — Elwikiseñor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck vote of confirmed sockpuppet --Cybercobra (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, primary sources mean that it has a homesite. That doesn't mean notability. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Note Elwikisenor and 201.195.12.106 are possible sockpuppets of Fabrifago. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fabrifago. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Something I Can Never Have

The result was speedy delete per G12: unambiguous copyright infringement. Evil saltine (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Something I Can Never Have

(Find sources: "Something I Can Never Have" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non notable song.

It should also be noted that the whole article is copied from here KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 19:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BIHF

The result was delete. It's snowing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] BIHF

(Find sources: "BIHF" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

WP:NEOLOGISM/WP:NFT. No reliable, independent, third party sources. A google search of the acronym turns up nothing, and something else already takes the acronymn (probably an neologism also), which is why a redirect is not appropriate. (ex. see [4]) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Send to urban dictionary! Francium12 (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Delete-Definite sent to urban dictionary]--SKATER ^Speak. 19:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Snow Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, made-up neologism. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete...do I even need to tell you why!?!? KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 20:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Well the PROD was removed which is why I brought this to AfD. There needs to be a speedy for NEOLOGISMS. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, since we can't transwiki to the urban dictionary. WP:NEO. WP:MADEUP. I think it's snowing already. Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qiz (wrestler)

The result was Speedy delete a7, backyard wrestling isn't a claim of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Qiz (wrestler)

(Find sources: "Qiz (wrestler)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non notable backyard wrestler. Nikki♥311 19:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. He is just one of the thousands of wannabe wrestlers who compete in backyard wrestling. TJ Spyke 19:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Per Above--SKATER ^Speak. 19:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of BitTorrent sites (2nd nomination)

The result was keep. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of BitTorrent sites

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Comparison of BitTorrent sites

Articles for deletion/Comparison of BitTorrent sites (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: "Comparison of BitTorrent sites" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Re-creation of a page that was AfD once, speedily deleted twice, restored and deleted again. Like other file sharing comparison articles, it lacks reliable sources is unencyclopedic. Dynablaster (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. "Like other..." is a good statement as the "other" are indeed lacking resources too. Still Comparison of BitTorrent clients lives and the same applies to Comparison of operating systems which has been around since 2004, provides valuable information and has 6 poor references. This article has 11 references and growing, provides valuable information, covers additional standards and certainly offers a valuable encyclopedic reference for the reader. Instead of deleting it, I suggest we try to provide additional substance. What would you like to see there that would make it more substantial? Thanks! Nokiki (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I think I agree with Nokiki. I wasn't sure at first which way to go on this, and guess I'm still somewhat on the fence. The way I see it this article is pretty much completely sourced via primary sources. The websites compared, themselves, show which features they have, and there aren't really any points of contention in the article that would be challenged. It's not a subjective comparison, like a review of which sites are best. It's just a listing of which common features each site has, and an explanation of each feature. I think that's pretty encyclopedic, and I don't really see any reason to delete the article. Equazcion (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep as an exception if necessary. But has nobody else ever written a comparison of these, or published about them? DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Looking at Google Suggest, the number two BitTorrent related search (in terms of popularity) is "BitTorrent Sites" and Google places this article at #3. Google clearly believes there is value in this article (granted, it being on Wikipedia gets 90% of the job done..). I see no point in deleting this article any more than I see a point in deleting any other "Comparison" article on Wikipedia. I feel comparisons give users a valuable, educational tool. This article that was deleted in the past^[1] was nothing but a list of links. This iteration includes far more useful information. Sojourner666 (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep There is a lot of bad articles on Wiki but sometimes it seems some users are fast to pull the plug on people trying to create something new and useful. True the information in this article could be found in other pages on Wiki but so is the case with so many other articles. The only question I ask myself when I consider a deletion is if the article is useful for people like me that use wikipedia daily. And with this article the answer is a simple Yes. It is very easy for me to make that decision since I am one of those people who download a lot (and I mean a lot...) and for me finding the perfect torrent site is important. Features change, there are plenty of options to choose from out there and there is nothing wrong with a simple page that explains main features and provides a simple table that compares all that noise in the torrent market. Why delete it so fast? Give it time let it grow, more sites will be added in the future. Specially when many sites go down and up all the time and when index quality is a problem having a page here would help get the up to date information about where good torrents indexes can be found. Downloaderprof (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:DAW. PS. This AFD consists of the above user's only contribs. Equazcion (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep According to Google there are 480 articles on Wikipedia with the words "Comparison of" in their title^[2]. I looked at a few of them and they are all pretty similar - a bunch of features where on occasion there is a reference. Unless you wish to promote a generic ban on such Comparisons, I think this one should stay. I noticed that Dynablaster (talk), who initiated this AfD actually made a revision a few days ago to Comparison of file sharing applications - he added a link to Comparison of Gnutella software (shortly after removing it). Both articles have no real references. Why not put them on AfD too? I don't think arbitrary AfDs are good for Wikipedia. Duras2000 (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Snowball keep from the "oh my god, I can't believe that article was put up for deletion" files. Do I really need to list reasons why more than what is said here already? Ikip (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Duras2000 (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpretations of Fight Club

The result was keep. We do not talk about deleting "Fight Club". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Interpretations of Fight Club

(Find sources: "Interpretations of Fight Club" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I doubt that the subject of this article is notable, because while there have been many books and papers written on Fight Club, none of them (to my knowledge) have become significantly more famous than any other piece of generic academia. In other words, the subject matter is legitimate, but not important. Still, even if it were notable, hardly a single sentence in this article is neutral. I don't exaggerate: Section 1 is entirely about how the film is a "failure". Section 2 is entirely about how the film is pro-fascist. The author's use of references doesn't solve the neutrality problem, nor does it even make a convincing case for notability. You'll see what I mean when you look through it.

I don't think the article can be saved -- at the very best, it could hypothetically become a small section on the main Fight Club article. But we already have one of those. ICWP (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The subject is clearly legit but the article is written like an essay. I would like to see it salvaged though. Is the editor willing to work on it? Francium12 (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to work on it. I'm used to working on film articles, so when it comes to academic material, I'm not so strong. Depending on the outcome of this AfD, let's start discussion at the article's talk page to see how it could be improved. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep because the article is a sub-article of Fight Club (film). The main article is large in size, and if there was an "Interpretations" section with its various subsections, it would overwhelm everything else in the article. Per WP:SS, a sub-article about the academic interpretations of Fight Club was created. It is still a work in progress, as evidenced by all the academic material in the "Further reading" section. If there are NPOV concerns, we can discuss them on the article's talk page, but it is not a reason for deletion. (For what it's worth, I happen to like the film, so these sections weren't added to spite it... the sources being reliable and credible, the commentary is worth reporting.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ——Erik (talk • contrib) 18:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep From what I remember of the film it had a lot to say about consumerism and masculinuty and it would be nice to have a Neutral analysis of these themes. Sometimes deletion is the easy option people reach for... Francium12 (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep, it seems clear this is a topic discussed in academia and an appropriate, notable split from the main article, which is already lengthy. As the main is a GA and well done, it isn't an issue of bloat that could be shortened to make room for more content. As Erik has noted, there are tons of sources waiting to be used. Wish more films had generated so much reliable, quality sources on themes and interpretations! Concerns about neutrality, tones, organization, etc. can and should be dealt with on the article talk page, not AfD. I also find it a bit disconcerting that the nominator is an SPA, particularly with the disagreements of late at Fight Club article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Very Strong Delete Because you don't talk about Fight Club. --173.16.55.8 (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, he's got us there! Lugnuts (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep with the recommendation that it be tweaked to avoid the unintentional negative appearance (that could be combated in the meantime by perhaps moving the largely neutral section "Genre classifications" to the beginning of the article). Fight Club is a film that has been taught, analysed and studied in such depth that this is certainly a notable topic, and a comprehensive "Interpretations of..." section would not fit within the parent article; therefore I agree that summary style applies here. The nominator points to Fight Club (film)#Themes, but that section and this article cover almost entirely different ground, so there is little or no redundancy here. Steve ^T • C 07:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep - The subject has received significant coverage and the article is well sourced. In theory a merge with the main article could be appropriate, but the main article is already very long, so keeping this standalone makes most sense. Rlendog (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Collectonian. Cerebellum (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley Strawn

The result was merge one; however, not sure about the notability of the Easter Sunrise one. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shirley Strawn

(Find sources: "Shirley Strawn" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable diamond searcher. Only claim to notability is discovering the Strawn-Wagner Diamond (of dubious notability), so this is really a WP:ONEEVENT thing. I am also nominating Glenn Worthington for the same reason: notable for finding one diamond (of dubious notability), and his other work (writing a book about diamonds) is not noteworthy.

Redirect both articles to Strawn-wagner diamond/Easter Sunrise Diamond respectively. WP:ONEEVENT says The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. Neither of these appear to have done anything else note-worthy (for Wikipedia's inclusion criteria anyway) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

~~To clarify, Worthington found the Easter Sunrise Diamond, a separate diamond from the one Strawn found.— DroEsperanto (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)~~

Merge/redirect as per above. The titles are useful as search terms. However, as noted above, they are notable for one event each. The better solution is to put the coverage with the diamonds they found. —C.Fred (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Merge per above. The names are plausible search terms -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahdade

The result was speedy deleted by Black Kite under WP:CSD#A3. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ahdade

(Find sources: "Ahdade" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Made up. No ghits. Would have been a speedy but I don't think any of the classifications fit. Clubmarx (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I have stuck a {{db-vandalism}} speedy on it since I believe it is blatant and obvious misinformation. Jll (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Favorpals

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that the sources are either too unreliable or too sparsely mention the company to truly meet the notability criteria. Much of the keep side relied on arguments like WP:ITSNOTABLE without refuting the points brought up by the delete side. NW (Talk) 21:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Favorpals

(Find sources: "Favorpals" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable company, declined speedy nominee. Makes a claim to notability, but nothing to substantiate it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - if references are added to the claims of coverage, then Keep. Otherwise, the statements are not backed up. Clubmarx (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I added a reference. The company appears to be notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I found those two references, but as both of them are a single paragraph mention saying that the company exists (which no one doubts), I didn't think it was significant coverage as per WP:NOTABILITY. I quote the relevant sections below. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Full relevant texts of two mentions:

News & Observer: "Last fall, Zeo Solomon helped launch a new direct-barter Web site called favorpals.com, which has already had several successful health care exchanges. A dermatologist did a checkup in exchange for having his office cleaned; a psychiatrist saw someone a few times in exchange for help on a Web site design, and a family doctor conducted a physical in exchange for pastries from a famous New York bakery. More than 20 percent of the 10,000 people who joined the barter site were seeking or offering health care, Solomon said."
MSNBC mention: "At Favorpals, a fledgling online bartering service, health trades already make up 20 percent of the transactions, said Zeo Solomon, a co-founder of the site. “It’s one of the hottest items we’re swapping,” said Solomon, who started the site last November."

Delete Out of all the shows/websites mentioned, I could only find a reference on the Yahoo!Green website (which I have added). The other websites have no mention, and the only mentions I can find about "Today" and "KRON" are on the company's own website and press releases. Noble is not the same as notable. All the hits found on Google News Search for "favorpals.com" were either the same press release via PRWEB or were 'Page not found' results. The only one I could find said "I placed 2 ads on favorpals.com and got no replies, but then there were only 15 listed in [my] area." Fails WP:COMPANY -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:COMPANY]. Articles only briefly mention Favorpals as an example of a bartering service; not the primary focus of the article. I can't see this meeting notability standards. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per PhantomSteve. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Per the Phantom. Joe Chill (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I live in Oakland, Favorpals is very known in San Francisco bay area, they sponsor many services exchange events around here and I've seen the founders give talks in Berkeley Earth day and few other events about their vision of a world without money. In fact, their theory of using the collective collaboration of the web to ease the pain created by the weak economy is much similar to Wikipedia's vision of the knowledge gained by the collective consciousness, It will be a shame not to include them in WP -- one more reference to support them, their interview on Good Day Sacramento, http://gooddaysacramento.com/showinfo?articleID=48595 Amazis (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC) — Amazis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Interesting that your very first edit would be a vote in an AfD... --Cybercobra (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I have spent a bit of time looking in depth at the citations (13 as I type):
- 3 are from the company's own blog
- 4 are from other blogs (Greenwala, CheapandEasySF, Bargains 4 Seniors, Yahoo!Green)
- 3 mention favorpals.com as an example of a barter site (1-3 sentences) - none of them are about the site, but the idea of bartering (News&Observer 3 sentences, MSNBC 2 sentences, Examiner 1 sentence)
- 1 is local coverage (Good Day Sacramento) - no indication of any importance beyond the area
- 1 is the MSN Today report - 22 seconds mention (in a section of the segment mentioning other barter sites as well) out of just over 5-1/2 mins reporting (6.5%)
- 1 I couldn't get to work (Herald) - I'm having connections problems, but that might be at my end
Comment (cont) None of these would be what I would call significant coverage - which is what WP:NOTABILITY requires. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment Following the train of thought above, an initiative can provide thousands of references only to be dismissed by using words like blog, seconds or sentences. 22 Second on the Today show means 6 million viewers have been introduced to the site. The Yahoo green "blog" is written by Lori Bongiorno, one of the most celebrated writers in the green/environmental sector, and the list goes on. I believe that the original commentators are falling victims to a weapon of influence called "commitment and consistency", you've already made your initial judgment and you're committed to supporting it no mater what. -Amazis
- Response: When I looked into the references, I looked up both Lori Bongiorno (but she didn't have a Wikipedia article) and Yahoo! Green - which did not refer to her either. The cited reference is Lori's blog (the page calls itself 'The Conscious Consumer blog'). Let me explain why I 'dismissed by using' the words:
  - 'blog': As a rule, as blogs are self-published, they are not generally regarded as reliable sources of information.
  - 'seconds' - WP:NOTABILITY mentions significant coverage - a quick mention amongst other websites would not be generally thought of as significant.
  - 'sentences' - again, if there are only 1 or 2 sentences in an article about the subject, it would not be considered significant coverage.
- I am neither a deletionist or an inclusionist with regard to articles being included in Wikipedia. If you look at my history, you will see that there have been some articles I have personally put up for PROD or AFD which I have later removed that nomination for, as I have been convinced by the arguments raised in discussion. There have been other articles which have been unreferenced that I have added citations for, even though I have no knowledge of (or interest in) the subject matter. I personally do not feel that the references given meet the criteria required by WP:NOTABILITY. Others may feel differently than I do, and that is perfect OK - that is the whole purpose of this discussion. If someone finds a reference that shows this website's notability, I would gladly change my recommendation. (If they found an entire article about the company on a reliable source, such as a newspaper's site, or a news article on a TV show, rather than a quick "here is one example of such a site 'favourpals', here are some more..."). Unless this happens, I personally won't be convinced of the notability of favorpals - nobility is not the same as notability. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for taking the time to explain your rational. So here are my replies to some of your points.

Regarding your argument "I looked up both Lori Bongiorno (but she didn't have a Wikipedia article) and Yahoo! Green - which did not refer to her either." I'm siting the Yahoo Green article about Lori Bongiorno http://green.yahoo.com/blog/the_conscious_consumer

Regarding your argument "or a news article on a TV show, rather than a quick "here is one example of such a site 'favourpals'" -

Per their article, they had two full TV stories, one on Good Day Sacramento, and the other on KRON San Francisco TV, both are in the category of major TV Market of the USA. I do not mean any disrespect when I say that your opinion is very subjective when you chose to over look those two full stories and only signify the ones that you believe do not qualify the notability.

I really wish other environmentalists can join this conversation which I think is missing the point by focusing more on "word's definitions" rather than the green issue at hand. Favorpals advocacy for micro-transactions and excess inventory recycling for both services and products is an avant-guard economical theory, and it might be what the world need to recover from this vulnerable stage of unbalanced economy. It's really unfortunate to see them being dismissed over the subjective understanding of the word "notability", of which, in my opinion, they had fulfilled and qualified. -Amazis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.4.140 (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

- Thanks for your response. As far as CW 31 and KRON are concerned - although their potential audience are large, notability on wikipedia normally required national or international coverage - these are both essentially examples of local coverage. I am not over-looking those because they are favourable in the argument in favour of keeping the article - they still do not make the article meet the notability criteria.
- The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia - it is not Wikipedia's to focus on green issues. If those issues have reliable sources of information which meet the encyclopedia's criteria for notability, then that's all well and good - but at the end of the day, this is an encyclopedia. I am however adding this to the "Environment" delsort category, which I neglected to do on Sunday when I put it in the other delsort cats. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
KeepI am a Favorpals member and have to say, I really appreciate the scrutiny this article is going through but at the same time I have to say their approach, Favorpals, is rather unique and that is why I have been using them. I really like the idea of reusing the skills which is leveling the playing field. Their uniqueness is in their simplicity and ease of use. After reading these comments I did a research of my own, and found multiple coverages by TV stations in Miami, Houston, Dallas, and Seattle. This is in addition to the coverages to California stations. From my humble opinion they do cover the notability since it expands across multiple states and cities across US in addition to various website articles, and blogs. --TraderSteve (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC) — TraderSteve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Then please show us this fine research of yours. Note that blogs are in most cases not accepted as establishing notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  - I agree with Cybercobra. Ignoring the blogs, if you can show that the multiple coverages by all those TV stations are more than a few seconds' coverage (along the lines of "here is an example, Favourpals.com... here is another example) - in other words, it is significant coverage (and also not just re-showing the footage on Good Morning Sacromento, it needs to be seperate coverage, by the station(s) themselves), then add citations. Just saying it was done is not an argument in favour of keeping the article - and since you say that you found them, I'm assuming it was through an internet search. I couldn't find other coverage, but that does not mean it isn't out there! So if you can cite the website(s) you found, what channel/station is was broadcast on, and when, then add those to the article. Showing coverage nationally (but again, they need to be a complete news story about favorpals, not just a few seconds) would make it notable, but I've not found verifiable evidence of this. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  - 1)The Blog for favorpals has links to Today Show by Matt Lauer interviewing Farnoosh Torabi and discussing favorpals, Today show is a national program which has its audience in millions.
    2)A link to Kron4 news channel which serves San Francisco/Bay area has also been made available on the blog containing the interview with the founders.
    3)The ABC 13 Houston has also been made available in the blog.
    4)The Good Day Sacramento has also been made available containing the interview with the founders.
    This brings the tally to 4 different TV stations/programs where 2 are in california, 1 in Texas and one is national.
    5)An article in mainstreet.com discussing favorpals.
    
    Truth of it is we can go on, and discuss this for a long time, there is a group who truly believe this article is not only noble but notable and there is another group who believes that is not the case. I have not listed every single website and blogs since it has been stated that it is not notable, I disagree with that but for sake of peace I will move on with that topic.--TraderSteve (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    - Also, can I point out that no one here is saying that the principle behind favorpals.com isn't a worthy one - I think most (if not all) of us would say that it is a noble idea... but noble is not the same as notable. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep per me agreeing with the other Keep sayers. This is an article with atleast the minimum of notability needed to establish an article. And it is well referenced.--Judo112 (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chia Jani

The result was keep. Discussion regarding editorial decisions should continue at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chia Jani

(Find sources: "Chia Jani" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I cannot find any secondary sources on this material (including a JSTOR search), but I'm not sure if archaeological sites would fall more under physical places with inherent notability or require some secondary sources to be kept. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Merge somewhere (an article about the neolithic period in Iran perhaps). I am not aware of any guidelines on this issue, but in my opinion significant archaeological settlement sites are inherently worthy of an article (e.g. Ur, Skara Brae). However lesser ones need to demonstrate notability (e.g. Dispilio which was occupied for a long time and is now set up as a tourist attraction), which this site doesn't. However we should not lose this information, and so it should be merged somewhere although I don't have an exact article that I know of where it would fit. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep - In my opinion, if we do not want to lose the information in an article, and there is no suitable article with which to merge it, the correct course of action is to keep the article. The lack of secondary sources is regrettable, but the subject is in the middle of a war zone, and according to the article there is interest in further excavation at the site, so we may get secondary sources once the war is over. Cerebellum (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep According to The Early Development of Pastoralism in the Central Zagros Mountains by Kamyar Abdi (Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 17, No. 4, December 2003) : "Only three sites dating to the Early (Aceramic) Neolithic are recorded:ID1 (or, more simply “1”) (Chogha Gavaneh), 48 (Chia Baft), and 117 (Chia Jani)". I would say that this makes it notable - obviously there were a lot more than that, but only three have been identified, and this is one of them. The National Geographic Society also think they are important, as they have made at least 1 RCE (Research, Conservation and Exploration) Grant (NGS Grants (KMZ format)): 2001 - Bernbeck, Reinhard, W. - Sharing And Consumption At Iranian Early Neolithic Chia Jani: "The Chia Jani project will conduct archaeological excavations at the Neolithic (8th to 7th millennium B.C.) site of Chia Jani in the Zagros mountains of western Iran in order to investigate the social relations accompanying changing patterns of food acquisition. The project examines the ways in which food processing and consumption - in particular the sharing of food - changed as the community modified its reliance on domesticated plants and animals. The results will make an important contribution to studies of Neolithic societies throughout the Near East and especially to studies that examine the connections between people and the natural environment" -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Sterling

The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dana Sterling

(Find sources: "Dana Sterling" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No google hits apart from those in Rototech.com. Dana Sterling is a common name and the entry would be usefull in the future for a real person. Article seems to be a combination of original research and improper synthesis. (See expressions like "Difficult Chioldhood", "the only explanation that made sense (or mattered) was that Dana was the result of the love that Max and Miriya had for one another", etc.). No references to support this essay. Magioladitis (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep - This is a major character in one the most famous adapted-anime series. It is notable. This article has been posted for years and has never been considered improper for Wikipedia. There are plenty of Wikipedia pages that deal with fictional characters and this one is no different. The statements cited above are not "improper synthesis" - they are sourced from the Robotech novels which, as stated, are secondary continuity. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

Keep the nominator obviously didn't use Google. This is the main character for the second season of Robotech, so at the very least a merge is in order. However, when actually using Google, many of the hits in the first 100 are for the Robotech character. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you use Google better, can you provide me me a link about that character? -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. A significant character in the series apparently (I have never seen it). Significant coverage of the character at [5] and on many fan sites. "Lieutenant Dana Sterling" seems to be a much better search term in this context than "Dana Sterling". Jll (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(Find sources: "Lieutenant Dana Sterling" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Comment The article above is not covering the character. Fan sites are not reliable sources. Note to closing admin: This is NOT a majority vote. Please read the arguments carefully. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment The article discusses the character in some detail in its content section. The Wikipedia:Notability guideline says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The character is the main topic of the page in a couple of other sources I have found — [6] and [7]. Jll (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep: As I cited above, this article is about an important character in an extremely popular anime-adapted television series. There are plenty of similar sites throughout Wikipedia. It should be kept. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

Keep per hyperionsteel. Cerebellum (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernesto Piedras

The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ernesto Piedras

(Find sources: "Ernesto Piedras" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Doesn't seem to satisfy any of the conditions in WP:PROF. GS h-index ~~is 1~~is 3, so WP:PROF#1 is out of consideration. CronopioFlotante (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Query "Ernesto Piedras" gets 435 regular Google hits, 499 Google News hits, 52 Google Books hits, and 66 Google Scholar hits. What is your explanation of that? Abductive (reasoning) 09:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, I was missing some entries. GS h-index is actually 3. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the Google hits, my claim is that Ernesto Piedras is not notable according to WP:PROF. He writes in newspapers. That would explain his presence in Google. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Note User who created the article has been blocked User_talk:The-ciu. Ernesto Piedras may not get a fair defense. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Qwfp (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR standards enough to satisfy me. I'm not Mexican but I'm willing to bet any editors from Mexico would defend his notability emphatically. Impressive Google test too. Shouldn't be too hard to cleanup and reference. -- œ^™ 21:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- After checking out some of the Google hits I noticed that several of them are related to his job as general director of The Competitive Inteligence Unit, S.C, a consulting firm specializing on telecoms. I'm not sure that they point towards WP:AUTHOR being satisfied. I agree that input by Mexican editors would settle this matter. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep I'm not Mexican, but there are enough sources to satisfy me. Cerebellum (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean per WP:AUTHOR? --CronopioFlotante (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samahang Kapatid

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Samahang Kapatid

(Find sources: "Samahang Kapatid" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Unsourced, Original research, of dubious notability. Therefore fails N, ORG, RS & OR Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

weak keep The Google News archive search listed by the nominator gives several acceptable sources. It seems odd that after actually doing the search , the article was nominated for deletion instead of their being added. But weak keep only because even with the sources, the notability is not all that strikingly clear. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Vandalism, including mis-information, inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, or gibberish made by User 67.175.193.204 on several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sino Kayo (talk • contribs) 00:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC) — Sino Kayo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep, appears to be notable based on the sources provided. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete, article came to my attention because it uses the horrendous phrase "ChicagoIand area", and because the news mentions are "trivial". Speciate (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. C. M. Agrawal

The result was delete. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. C. M. Agrawal

(Find sources: "Dr. C. M. Agrawal" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Mid-level govt official, only ref is the employer website. I haven't been able to find any reliable sources outside of the employer either. Article was likely created by the subject's son, and initially had some info about him too. PROD was contested. Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Delete -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources using C. Agrawal or C.M. Agrawal. There were some references to a Dr Agrawal, but without a first name for "C.M.", I don't think we'll be able to show that this Dr is notable, beyond being a middle-management employee, which isn't enough to pass WP:BIO. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- There is a notable Dr Agrawal of Agrawal Eye Hospital, no page yet; that would cloud search hits though. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Shyamsunder (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, insufficiently notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: The page creator (active IP) has removed the AfD template thrice so far. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- And another four times, making it a total of seven now. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete - the provided references in the article do not establish ntoability and I am unable to find any sourcing -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per reasons stated (and I went ahead and protected the page for now). IMO, this doesn't pass WP:BIO. He's lettered to be sure, but he's basically a government employee by the looks of this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Part (haircut)

The result was redirect to Hairstyle. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Part (haircut)

(Find sources: "Part (haircut)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

PROD removed without explanation or improvement. This is completely unsourced and constitutes original research. Wperdue (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to Hairstyle WP:OR may be a bit strong (as that implies some kind of research, which doesn't appear to have been done here!). However it is unsourced, and not necessary. Perhaps this could have a mention in the Hairstyle article, but even that I'm unsure about -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Point taken. The original version had such gems as "The hairstyle represents respect and is often chosen by men during formal occasions." Wperdue (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Hairstyle. A "part" is often characteristic of other hairstyles. The selected few people listed in the article as having parted hair are maybe 1/10 of 1 % of the people with Wikipedia articles who had parts in their hair, and it is unencyclopedic to pick out a few notorious favorites and list them. Edison (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment If this article survives AfD it needs to be added to the dab pages at Part and Parting. PamD (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- It was already listed at the latter in 2007, but was removed without explanation. Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supernatural (season 1)

The result was keep. Needs expansion, not deletion. Tone 20:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Supernatural (season 1)

(Find sources: "Supernatural (season 1)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This currently does not assert any sort of independent notability, so it is currently just redundant to the episode list. There aren't any pressing size issues at this point either, so there is no need for a split because of that. It is possible for some season articles to be made into proper articles, so if someone is able to find some base information, I'll withdraw this. TTN (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. This season article definitely needs a lot of work, but it is just as notable as any other season article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Season articles are not automatically notable. They are only created if the actual season is shown to be notable through reliable sources, or if there is just no way to fit all of the episodes within a single list. Size is not the issue here, so can you please show how this can be developed to match any of these? If some basic sources are provided, I'll withdraw this. TTN (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural: The Official Companion Season 1 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep' Articles which need expanding would in an ideal world not end up on AfD. Francium12 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep As above. It should be expanded, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabiona (talk • contribs) 13:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoLove

The result was delete. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NoLove

(Find sources: "NoLove" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

the creator contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this book. The creator has a conflict of interest. Joe Chill (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete no notability asserted. Clubmarx (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete nonnotable selfpublished (if published at all) book. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, self-published, and IMHO spam. Note that the author of the article tried to create this article before and it was speedy deleted. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete no notability Francium12 (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I confirmed this was self-publishing, which attracts no notability, and my search revealed no other potential sources of notability for either the book or the author. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baljaffray

The result was merge to Bearsden. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Baljaffray

(Find sources: "Baljaffray" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I cannot fathom any reason why this housing estate is worthy of a wikipedia page. It is located in Bearsden, a town that already has an article devoted to it. magnius (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Bearsden Francium12 (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Merge to Bearsden. Google Books and Scholar clearly indicate that this area is part of that town, and the article currently says pretty much all there is to be said about the place. Abductive (reasoning) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Merge to Bearsden per above. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep. The Google Books search linked above shows that well before the housing estate was developed Baljaffray had an existence separate from Bearsden as a limestone and coal mining centre, with sources such as these. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecomarche

The result was speedy close. No prejudice against relisting in WP:RfD but we shouldn't be using AfDs for redirects. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ecomarche

While trying to expand Les Mousquetaires, accidently made two articles with incorrect spelling (should be Ecomarché), (other article for deletion is Écomarché. Sorry! ProcEnforce (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC) ProcEnforce (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep for non-accented keyboard users (article is a redirect to Ecomarché). Author advised on talk page about {{db-author}} for the other accidental creation below --Saalstin (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Ecomarché as a plausible misspelling. Sandstein 17:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The page is already a redirect to Ecomarché, and was in fact already one before this AfD discussion page was created, so actually the discussion does not belong here, but at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. --Lambiam 17:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Écomarché

The result was redirect to Ecomarché. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Écomarché

While trying to expand Les Mousquetaires, accidently made two articles with incorrect spelling (should be Ecomarché), (other article for deletion is Ecomarche. Sorry! ProcEnforce (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC) ProcEnforce (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment If a source can be found for the the "400 stores across Europe" that would establish notability Francium12 (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment AIUI, the user doesn't want the article Ecomarché deleted, merely two other articles which currently redirect there, and have typos in the accents. I've advised user on his talk page about {{db-author}} --Saalstin (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete and many hours later I remembered I hadn't gotten round to following the logic of the comment above - the only author has requested deletion, so speedy delete under CSD G7 --Saalstin (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep; quite harmless and in fact very plausible redirect, since the company itself spells the name ÉCOMARCHÉ in its logo; the French words for economy and ecology are économie and écologie. See also WP:REDIRECT#KEEP. --Lambiam 19:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Ecomarché as a plausible misspelling. Sandstein 17:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The page is already a redirect to Ecomarché. --Lambiam 17:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Patterson

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 15:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Patterson

(Find sources: "Tony Patterson" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This personal injury lawyer does not seem to meet the criteria for notability. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete no mention of key cases he has litigated. Appears to fail notability Francium12 (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Unremarkable career as an attorney. Unremarkable career as a basketball player. Location (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid making personal remarks about the subject of the article if possible. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not. "Unremarkable" means "lacking distinction". In other words, not notable per WP:N.Location (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, insufficiently notable, even as amateur basketballer. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asil training camp

The result was delete. While I appreciate the passionate keep arguments, I have to remind the keep side that notability of the subject must exist in the present; the existence of the subject does not guarantee notability. In six months, or six years, when there has been more material published, we can recreate this article properly. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Asil training camp

(Find sources: "Asil training camp" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources for this are brief mentions in internal US intelligence documents, which do not fulfil the requirement. Military bases are not an automatic pass of the WP:GNG, and should not be treated as if they are. Note that I have nominated multiple articles for deletion with the same rationale - I have not tied them together, because they are not the sort of thing that can be assessed en masse. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep per Snowball Keep of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp; these seem to all be nominated by the same person, attempting to perform Damnatio memoriae and introduce deletionist censorship into WP, not for the purpose of maintaining a higher-standard encyclopaedia, but because they bear a personal dislike of the article's subject and feel it is "unworthy" to merit an article - while they have never suggested (per this example) that one of the ~40 USMC bases, or any of the Category:United States military bases of the Vietnam War merit deletion; instead they just find the military bases, military leaders and military history of their ideological "enemies" and suggest they all be deleted. WP:NOTPAPER assures us that there is no limit to the number of articles that can exist, and an article like this one - although a stub right now - will one day include information on who started the base, when the Americans (or others) attacked it, how many died, whether it affected the outcome of any battles, and the like. It merits patience in waiting for future revelations about the camp. It is notable now, and the article will be complete in the future...just like millions of other stubs.
Delete: I'm taken aback at the vehemence of Sherurcij's Keep argument, which throws up a good deal of rhetoric flying in the teeth of WP:AGF without actually addressing the nom's argument. I am astonished that an editor of longstanding has racked up over 30,000 edits without being aware that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, or that - far from being optional - WP:V is the fundamental, irreducible value of the encyclopedia. It is not remotely enough, as Sherurcij ought to know, to assert that someday reliable sources might exist which satisfy the requirement of multiple, third-party, reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail. They must be present now, and so far they are not. Failing that, policy holds that an article cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 17:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

merge until more information becomes available on individual ones. In principle, they can each probably justify an article, but there's no point doing it with the limited available material. Myself, I'm taken aback by the lack of consideration for the possibilities of dealing with this according to WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect -- There are currently over half a dozen active {{afd}}s on articles on suspected safehouse/guesthouses, and Afghan training camps. As I noted in this afd I started most of these articles -- over three years ago. While I started them in good faith I now think some of the smaller ones should be merged and redirected to a larger article. But others require their own unique article. I think this is one of those that should be merged and redirected. Geo Swan (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment, I would encourage people to take a brief look at Najim Jihad, a similar article dealing with a safehouse in Jalalabad; through piecing together different reports - none of which acknowledge the other's existence, and some of which refuse to use the "accepted" name of the safehouse, we are able to host an article that sources FBI affadavits, CSRT/ARB tribunal proceedings, CNN, TIME Magazine, the Toronto Star, and other sources. While this article is not yet at that level of completeness, it is on its way there, even if it takes six months or six years to reach that point - we do not delete WP articles because they are "incomplete" - the subject is notable, even if we are currently lacking secondary sources. Take for example, the issue of if a previously-unknown lawyer is suddenly announced to be appointed to the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice; now there may not be any secondary sources we've yet been able to find giving his biography, but someone may add a WP article piecing together what can be found in primary sources about him - as long as the article is neutral and referenced - we will simply have to wait for a book about the man to be published in five years..but we won't delete the article in the meantime as he meets the threshold of notability. An article's subject is either notable or is not notable, the amount of secondary sources is irrelevant - if I were to publish my memoirs and devote a chapter to my next-door neightbour growing up...he is not suddenly notable and worthy of a WP article even though there are "secondary sources" - likewise if an article is created about Crispin Sorhaindo, the former President of Dominica in the 1990s...the fact there are no "secondary sources" about his life would not mean his article merits deletion since he is notable. Again, these articles will incorporate details about who stayed at them, when they were destroyed, whether people were killed in the bombing/raid, and similar details - but the details do take time to filter out of places like Guantanamo into mainstream press. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The subject is by definition not notable because it fails the most basic test of notability. "it will be notable in six months or six years" is directly addressed in "arguments to avoid", and should not be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Bryan

The result was delete. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Antonio Bryan

(Find sources: "Antonio Bryan" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Footballer who plays for a notable team's academy (not the first team). No third party sources, official profile states no appearances and no goals. Fails WP:ATHLETE/WP:GNG – Google search yields no evident third-party/reliable coverage. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Scott Moffatt (footballer) seems to be in a similar position to this article. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. As per nom. noq (talk)
Delete per above. – Pee Jay 20:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable athlete. Jogurney (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE Spiderone 08:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ondicom

The result was delete. Tone 20:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ondicom

(Find sources: "Ondicom" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Looks like an advertisement. The original author removed the "unsourced" template but added only one link where Ondicom is barely mentioned. The very model of a minor general (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete not notable. Clubmarx (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete - I'm not finding the coverage in reliable sourcs that would establish this company's notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 15:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway

(Find sources: "Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Little context, overlong articles, no sources, no chance of being sourced. If kept, trim greatly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @288 · 05:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, along with a strong lack of WP:RS. Lithorien (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment Wow. I didn't get what the future thing is about. Seemed to be a directory of stations on different lines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Agree with nom, the purpose of this article seems unclear and lost.--Crossmr (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Pointlessly repetetive. Each individual rail line has its own article, and any future developments should be covered there. PC78 (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, this appears to be a poorly formatted article about ideas for somehow joining existing subway lines in different Korean cities into some sort of national network with the addition of more stations. There are no sources so it is not possible to verify whether this unlikely sounding conglomeration of networks is more than one persons fantasy. Sourced information about officially proposed/planned/under construction stations/extensions/new lines can and should be covered on the article about the individual line. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of Korean Railway. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- That article is already part of this nomination. PC78 (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  - Fixed and relisted on today's AfD page as the second article was not previously tagged. PC78 (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playbackups

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 15:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Playbackups

(Find sources: "Playbackups" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Neologism. Some hits for "playbackups" but I think these are simply typos for "play backups". Jll (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete seems just to be to advertise the company. noq (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

References to company's were there phrase originated have been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevespy (talk • contribs) 13:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

But no references to show that as a term it exists outside the context of the company. Google doesn't help either. noq (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Google? You mean Google Inc. A company name I believe, that is listed on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.172.43 (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an article about Google Inc. The corporation easily meets Wikipedia:Verifiability, and the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines. Jll (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Google is a company and does have a page. However, as the previous reply says, Google is a verifiable notable company. The article is not supposed to be about a company but something else which I have difficulty identifying outside the contect of a company with little notability. Smells like spam to me. noq (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete, disguised spam. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Spam. Non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly how Nazi Germany started, a lot of layabouts with nothing better to do than stick their nose into other peoples business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.227.146 (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noor Ahmed Pechuho

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Noor Ahmed Pechuho

(Find sources: "Noor Ahmed Pechuho" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Looks like a pure vanity insertion and fails the Wikipedia's Notability tests too. Nothing special here at all MARWAT 11:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The incident he investigated is notable. He is not. Francium12 (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete he is not mentioned in the ref about the investigation. The refs that do mention him, are just that mentions. Non-notable. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete: The investigation is notable, but he isn't. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Delete as per nomintaion by Marwatt. --LineofWisdom (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Guy and Philosophy: A Cure for the Petarded

The result was Speedy Delete as a Copyvio. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Family Guy and Philosophy: A Cure for the Petarded

(Find sources: "Family Guy and Philosophy: A Cure for the Petarded" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Appears to be a non-notable book. Plus, it appears that the entire article is a copyright violation. ceranthor 11:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted as a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Untitled Story (2nd nomination)

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that there are not enough reliable secondary sources to establish notability. NW (Talk) 15:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] An Untitled Story

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/An Untitled Story

Articles for deletion/An Untitled Story: Extension Project

Articles for deletion/An Untitled Story (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: "An Untitled Story" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The only independent reference given is a short description at the Indie Games Blog. This is not significant enough to pass the general notability guidelines (WP:N). Marasmusine (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. <3 bunny 17:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep there are plenty of sources for those willing to edit, just google it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.148.145 (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you can find such sources, it would surely benefit us for you to link us the sources so we can improve this article. ♥ichi 00:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete – I did search, and I cannot find anything in reliable secondary sources that can provide any significant coverage establishing any notability of this game. Postings by users on Internet forums are self-published and not considered reliable. Also, while this normally falls under the speedy deletion criteria for recreation of deleted material, I'm not going to pursue that at this time in order to gauge a better consensus at this current AFD (the participation in the previous one was small at best) and that there is another AFD on a similar game. MuZemike 20:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Why is this the second nomination, when the first one resulted in delete? Was this deleted and recreated? ~ Eidako (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The current, recreated revision is different to the deleted 2007 article: this is not a repost. Marasmusine (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That and the consensus wasn't very good in the last one. Otherwise, I would have tagged as G4 right on the spot. MuZemike^{Use my VG templates!} 18:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep Great amount of references on the page and I bet we could find even more, "an untitled story game" has about 604,000 Google results. Also, games on Miniclip I think has no notibility because it's just a random flash game but something like Heli Attack has their own article that should meet or exceed Wikipedia's notibility rule. If this page gets deleted it's likely the page will come back soon. Jeremjay24 _msg 12:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

All but one of the references are useless for verifiability, so if you can actually link to some of your Google results, that might be helpful. I get closer to 512 hits, by the way. What's the relevance of Miniclip? Marasmusine (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Miniclip is a game with tons of flash games. However, Heli Attack (one of the games) has an article and it's just like the game we're talking about. It's a game made by Game Maker 7. It should barely meet Wikipedia's notibility guideline. Jeremjay24 _msg 00:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure Heli Attack can be dealt with some other time. It's inclusion can't be used as a keep argument for Untold Story. Any luck with those references? Marasmusine (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You must not have done too thorough of a search if you Googled "An Untold Story". --Wheel² (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I Dogpiled it and I easily found a few good references. Jeremjay24 _msg 14:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear. Can you provide links to some please? Marasmusine (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What do people think of JayIsGames.com? Marasmusine (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Iffy at best as far as reliability is concerned. I haven't been able to find anything that shows that they display a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It also doesn't help that half their pages about their site have been "under construction" for ages, now. I can't tell that they have some sort of editorial staff, if they even have a staff, or if it's one of those "anybody can walk in and write a review or walkthough" type of set-up. MuZemike 22:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EA portal

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] EA portal

(Find sources: "EA portal" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable website created as part of a Masters course. No third-party references. Previous prod removed. Tassedethe (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete: I can't find significicant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable website. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Matthews

The result was delete. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Brent Matthews

(Find sources: "Brent Matthews" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I've declined an A7 here, but this does not look to be a notable business as far as WP:CORP is concerned. If kept, article should be renamed to focus on the business and not the owner. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I can find plenty of travel directory entries for "Strategy Tag Paintball" (e.g. [8]), but no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. There are user-written reviews - e.g. [9] - but presumably anyone can submit one of those. Jll (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(Find sources: "Strategy Tag Paintball" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Delete, nonnotable business owner. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per non-notability and lack of secondary sources. User-written reviews are trivial to fake. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete non notable Clubmarx (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 23:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable business, and non-notable business owner.-gadfium 23:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
delete I'm unable to find substantial sourcing for either the individual or the business. However, the name is very common so that may be interfering with the searches. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Vanispamicruftisment dramatic (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsuyoshi Shimamura

The result was delete. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tsuyoshi Shimamura

(Find sources: "Tsuyoshi Shimamura" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

An unsourced article about a non-notable footballer who hasn't made a professional appearance. Spiderone 08:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, unsourced BLP, seems to fail WP:ATHLETE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC).
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Has not played in a pro league.--EchetusXe 13:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence this player has ever played in a fully-pro league. Jogurney (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Intercontinental

The result was delete. Non-notable Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Intercontinental

(Find sources: "Miss Intercontinental" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

non-notable beauty pageant as em.. helpfully explained in the article... Cameron Scott (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete How nice of the article to state its non-notabilty! Francium12 (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, a "low level pageant that struggles to find delegates and host countries to make it a world class pageant". Like shooting fish in a barrel. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC).
DeleteThe vast majority of the contestants did not come from a national competition unlike the contestants of other international pageants like Miss World or Miss Universe. There are no third party references other than personal pageant websites; the article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The pageant has no any mainstream news agency (like Associated Press or Reuters) that picks up the story. If there's any publicity or promotion, it is done mostly through blogs, paid advertisements, and non-notable websites. Additionally, you do not see the titleholder of this pageant making the news. Unlike Miss Universe and Miss World, Miss Intercontinental still has a way to go to prove itself worthy of global news and be included in an online encyclopedia--Ped Admi (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC).
Delete Per the nominator. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Per... the article, I guess. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Snow delete per ... the article. And nom. Why we do not have a CSD for articles that asserts the subject's non-notability is beyond me. Tim Song (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per the article, it seems. And I think it's snowing, despite it being August. I know that British weather can be changeable, but… damn. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can always imagine some place in the southern hemisphere. For all we know, it's probably snowing somewhere in Antarctica, at least, right? Tim Song (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Podget

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Podget

(Find sources: "Podget" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The article does not cite substantial coverage in reliable sources that would indicate why this software is notable, and I could not find any such coverage. Sandstein 06:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete, concur with nominator, appears to be a non-notable piece of software. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC).
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matija "Dace" Pavlovic

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 03:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Matija "Dace" Pavlovic

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Matija "Dace" Pavlovic

(Find sources: "Matija "Dace" Pavlovic" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Makes me throw up in my mouth a little to say it, but this article does at least assert notability, making speedy (in my mind) unsuitable. If somebody wants to A7 this, that's fine by me. The "Dinko Series of Poker" on which this article rests is speedyable (it gets a whopping zero ghits), so maybe this one really is too. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 05:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep There is some good info in this article. New info to this article will be added in the next two three days.Mpuskad3 (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete No external sources. One of the tournament's articles is up for A7. Clubmarx (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep Known poker player in Croatia. 93.159.66.69 (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC) — 93.159.66.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Matija "Dace" Pavlovic is a known poker player in Croatia, so this info is pretty useful. Disneyland23 (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)— Disneyland23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per above arguments. Geschichte (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Strong Delete The article fails WP:BIO. He did not participate in the WPT, EPT or the WSoP (or any widely known Poker Tournaments). He is not found in any reliable secondary sources. There is a Serbian basketball player of the same name, who gets more google hits. This is a vanity page – sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 08:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, I have won comparable amounts to this person playing roulette. Does this mean I can be called a notable Australian roulette player and have my own article? No third-party sources on this person that I could find, although I grant that they may be in Croatian and I just can't find them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC).
Delete per nom. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable small-time poker player. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: I don't think this will really influence the outcome, however, all three keeps are from the same editor per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mpuskad3/Archive. Location (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdspring (2nd nomination)

The result was keep. — Jake Wartenberg 03:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Crowdspring

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Crowdspring

Articles for deletion/Crowdspring (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: "Crowdspring" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Not notable? This article has been AfD-deleted before. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep I recreated it because the company is notable as a google news search and the citations I added indicate. The article can be expanded, but it doesn't happen to be a subject I'm particularly interested in. The company has been covered by Business Week, Information Week and other reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep - I'm not convinced all of the sourcing in the article is reliable. For example, the businessweek reference is to a company profile which is really part of a directory. But there is no doubt that they are the sole subject of Forbes, Information Week, and CNet articles. A Google news searfh turns up additional mentions such as CTV. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Story Of The Naga king

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Story Of The Naga king

(Find sources: "Story Of The Naga king" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Self-admitted to be a original story put on Wikipedia to gain attention. PROD was contested and it doesn't fit any speedy deletion criteria, so I am listing it here. I was tempted to IAR delete it, but I guess it doesn't really hurt to have it linger around another week. ThaddeusB (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete barely any ghits. Not published or by a notable author. Clubmarx (talk) 06:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom Francium12 (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia isn't scratch space for developing one's fiction writing skills. And I agree that this would have been an appropriate use of WP:IAR.-- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Taelus (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Ugh - CSD/IAR axe it anyway. --EEMIV (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Delete — a week is long enough to troll most any discussion into a no consensus. Don't miss the talk page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Snowball delete – There's nothing more I can add than what the others already have above. Omai. As far as the comment on the talk page is concerned, omai. MuZemike 00:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Panic

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Panic

(Find sources: "DJ Panic" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Does not pass WP:MUSIC. There is only one article about him; the rest of the links are not news items. Being nominated for an award is not notable in and of itself. Also, the article creator seems to be the subject of the article. Clubmarx (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Location (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. In addition to the above issues, the alleged COI editor recently deleted the COI template from the page: diff -- Foetusized (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kirby House

The result was G12 Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Kirby House

(Find sources: "The Kirby House" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails WP:N, lacks third party sources or any sources for that matter. NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC) 04:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

speedy delete, it's a copyvio from http://www.bbonline.com/mi/kirby/history.html Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Station (YouTube)

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Station (YouTube)

(Find sources: "The Station (YouTube)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No notable Coverage out side of YouTube there are no references or WP:RS, only external links to YouTube. Violates WP:NOTBLOG WP:WEB WP:NOT#NEWS Kyle1278 03:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Obvious delete I got about 68 hits from a google news search of "The Station" "YouTube" but most of them are not related. So unless somebody trawls through that and adds some decent reliable non-trivial sources, it fails all core guidelines as the nominator mentions. I would suggest speedy but it will probably end up at AfD eventually.--Otterathome (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, no independent sources showing notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment: "The Station" is brand-spanking new (first video posted Aug 8, 09), though the videos to date have performed very well on youtube . I added two refs to the article (the newteevee article is the notable source of the two), and edited the text a bit. Its likely that the channel will generate more press if it continues on its current path, but I really can't say for sure. Not sure it will before the AfD time is over.--Milowent (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment#2: Not finding any new notable articles about this as of today, though the page is getting some decent traffic per http://stats.grok.se/en/200908/The_Station_(YouTube) - e.g., 540 views on 8/23, 639 on 8/22. As an aside, is there a place I kind find out the avg page hits that wiki pages get, generally and by category, etc? Just wondering. --Milowent (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a WP:BLP. And views don't equal notability, see WP:POPULARPAGE. The sources you added are both blogs, one digital blog and the other a user-contributed one, like blogspot. Also see WP:CRYSTAL.--Otterathome (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, though I made a stab at improving the article, I haven't said it should stay or go. I would note that Newteevee.com is not a "blog" in the "cat blogger" sense, its a legitimate paid-journalist site reporting on internet video industry-related topics, with articles of larger interest sometimes distributed through NYTimes, CNN, Salon, etc. But this newteevee.com artcle is not an in-depth tome. Now, girl2watch.com - that's the non-notable source i referenced before. There's also an atrociously written "article" on the Station available through examiner.com. And assuredly someone on livejournal likes it too, but that's not gonna be citable.

I am also not saying that a popular page means it should automatically be kept; I was registering my surprise at the viewcounts and wondered how that compares to an average wikipedia page (depending on category, etc.)

If the page doesn't stay, I suppose "The Station" could merit a mention on the existing pages for Lisa Nova and Phil DeFranco.--Milowent (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bus Master-Transit Bus's Bus Gallery

The result was Userfied. (non-admin closure) Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 05:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bus Master-Transit Bus's Bus Gallery

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bus Master-Transit Bus's Bus Gallery

(Find sources: "Bus Master-Transit Bus's Bus Gallery" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

A collection of someone's images of buses. WP:NOT#HOST No article content. Clubmarx (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete nothing more than a collection of images, wikipedia is not a webhost RadioFan (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Suggest the user moves the images and gallery to commons. Majorly talk 02:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I have moved the article to User:Bus Master-Transit Bus/Gallery, without redirect. However I'm not gonna close this afd since I know nothing of image policy and this may not be appropriate--Jac16888^Talk 03:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- They need to be checked for fair-use images... if they are all free images it should be OK. Gigs (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gadget Maker

The result was keep. Tone 14:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Gadget Maker

(Find sources: "The Gadget Maker" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Book is not notable. Article consists mainly of a plot summary. ✈ James C. (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep - the article provides a reference to a NY Times book review. A Google News search turns up results behind pay walls that indicate reviews in other major dailies, and based on the search result, it was listed as "BEST SELLER HOPES FOR 1955" by the chicago Tribune. As it is a 1955 novel, sources may not be as readily available online, but given the information already in the article as well as the news search results, it appears to be notabe. The article could use a good dose of copy editting but that is not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep, coverage in the NYT, nominated for awards, and presumably covered in other contemporary sources. There's room for improvement, but that's true for pretty much all articles here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet First Aid

The result was keep. Cleanup is needed here, not deletion. Tone 14:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pet First Aid

(Find sources: "Pet First Aid" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Originally created as ad advertisement for a training course. Has very little content that isn't already included in Veterinary medicine. What little salvageable content there is could be merged there. Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I deprodded as the rationale given was a merge, and that's still the case. Merging is not deletion. I also don't favour a merge having looked for sources. There are hundreds about the topic of first aid for pets, with "pet" and "first aid" in the title:[10], over 2400 hits for "Pet first aid", another 200 extra hits for "first aid for pets",[11] and about 30 books specifically on this topic:[12]. Fences&Windows 19:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The article's current title suggests that its subject is a proper noun (in contrast to First aid). The content, however, doesn't. Frankly, I think veterinary medicine is in worse shape than this article, so I'll say weak keep. unsigned comment by User:Nosleep
Keep but tidy a little and expand.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 06:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saints in Methodism

The result was Keep. This has been around quite long enough given there is not even a single argument for deletion. Bduke (Discussion) 06:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Saints in Methodism

(Find sources: "Saints in Methodism" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Alleged to be a POV fork: "This article is "forced" as a result of rejection of the notion in article United Methodist Church." Posted as a courtesy on behalf of User:Afaprof01 who misfiled this at MfD. I remain neutral. Gigs (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I dedcided to make this page to add more information, since it shouldn't be included within the page Methodism, similar to the page Saints in Anglicanism. User:Tarheelz123 01:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Seems okay to me other than needing some formatting and editing. What's the problem? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep. No solid reason given to delete. No prej. to being re-nommed in the future for a valid deletion guideline. youngamerican (wtf?) 15:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in early rock music

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 - see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in early rock music (2nd nomination) etc. Black Kite 17:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Racism in early rock music

(Find sources: "Racism in early rock music" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Unencyclopaedic essay. A very similar version was reviewed and declined at AfC. Deprodded (possibly by alternate account).

Delete I think there's an article to be had on this topic, but this isn't it. Would require a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 02:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, per the above comment; an article on this topic would be very interesting and informative, but it's going to need to be sourced, well-written, and neutral; three things that this article isn't. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC).
Delete It's also similar to something being discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in early 50's rock music. Apparently, there's some misguided schoolteacher out there who is teaching his or her students about Wikipedia, and encouraging them to put their assignments online. Kids, the "F" goes to your teacher for letting students take the heat for his mistake. Mandsford (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
De133t-While it's a neat article, it's unmaintainable, due to the fact that what I think is racism, and you think is racism. Unreferenced, unencyclopedic, and Edit-war bait KMFDM FAN ^(talk!)
Delete per WP:OR — vvv^t 09:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per the above. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in the early rock music. I challenge these kids' teacher to explain themself! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you explain yourself. How dare you abuse your admin powers to subvert the AfD process and delete all the material in the article and its revision records with an unmandated redirect before the AfD has come to a close? Anarchangel (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete as with the other several near-identical articles... for all the reasons given, but essentially these are very clearly unreferenced original research essays. – Kieran T ^(talk) 10:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete As I mentioned on a similar AfD, Wikipedia is not a repository for school work. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Copying my comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in early rock music (2nd nomination):

Delete as an unsourced essay. The topic is mentioned (with sources) at Rock and roll#Cultural impact and is implicated in both African American music#Mid-20th century (1940s-1960s) and Race records. If the negative impacts of racism within the industry or musical form are sufficiently notable, reliable sources treating the topic should be cited. I note, too, a vague similarity with The decline of rock 'n' roll at the end of the 1950s, which according to its talk page was created as a hoax "to see how long it took to be deleted". I have no evidence that the two articles are related, however. Cnilep (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kieran Kelly

The result was Damn. I typed in the search wrong. He does pass WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kieran Kelly

(Find sources: "Kieran Kelly" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I couldn't find any sources for this. This article has surprisingly been around since August 13, 2003. Joe Chill (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me Plus One (Annie song)

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. 2 relists and 20 days is long enough. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Me Plus One (Annie song)

(Find sources: "Me Plus One (Annie song)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Never released as an official single. Most of the background information is just a duplicate of Some Girls (Rachel Stevens song) (and incorrectly split, at that). The sources don't assert notability independent of the album. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisting comment. This debate wasn't sorted so a second relist makes some sense. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleven Eleven

The result was delete. Tone 14:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Eleven Eleven

(Find sources: "Eleven Eleven" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Article about a band that appears to fail WP:MUSIC. There may be some coverage but it only appears to be local and not significant enough. Was tagged for notability but template was removed. snigbrook (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete one article does not make them notable. Clubmarx (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete there may be possible local notability, but the band fails WP:MUSIC. Tavix | Talk 02:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman Cast and Crew

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 03:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman Cast and Crew

(Find sources: "List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman Cast and Crew" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Violates WP:INFO; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY; Wikipedia is not a directory. mhking (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge: A list of cast and crew in a show is not a directory, but there is no reason for this to be seperate from the article. This type of info belongs in the infobox on the show page or in a section on the show page. Joe Chill (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Not sure why most of the crew would be considered notable at all. The cast and notable crew people (executive producer and such) are already present in the infobox of the parent article (and sure, reinsert whatever was originally in the cast/crew section of the article). No need for a split. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per Nosleep. This article has the same issues as last time the page was deleted in April 2009. The "Cast and Crew" section of the main article is only a new section. This article was created without the information ever having been included in FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman.[13] As this article is just a list with no prose, merging it to the main article would achieve nothing, except bloat. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
keep someone else tried to put the crew into the fetch article before but it did not even work. also if you did merge it into the table it would not even work because it won't inculde the animatiors and other people who work on the show. so it should be kept. Extremeguy (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- The previous attempt "didn't work" because most of the added crew were not notable enough for inclusion and the list did not attempt to assert notability of the added content. Indeed it failed to provide any content other than just the names of the entire production crew, which is not encyclopaedic. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Merge/Delete as not notable. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Beautiful Life : TBL episodes

The result was redirect to The Beautiful Life: TBL . (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Beautiful Life : TBL episodes

(Find sources: "List of The Beautiful Life : TBL episodes" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

fails WP:CRYSTAL at the mo - we know two episode dates, of which one only even has a confirmed title. The series does not even start until mid-september. Ironholds (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition: 1) a list with two items isn't really worth its own page, 2) we don't have enough information on the matter to justify an individual article/list. Ironholds (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment Invalid deletion rationale. WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable here. Merely stating that a TV series will start next month is not unverifiable speculation. Deliberations if the series would be a success or failure or whatever would fall under CRYSTAL. I have no idea of what this show is about, but the info seems to be verifiable at IMDb [14] - this was the 2nd Google [15] I think what you're really saying is that you don't' think it's notable, but that's a different issue. The right action would be to fact tag it and merge it to The Beautiful Life: TBL instead of overburdening the AfD circuit. (refactored text) What about userfying it? Power.corrupts (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, thanks for shitting on my motives and inferring things there. Expanded the rationale somewhat. You seem to be ignoring the fact that IMDB is not considered a reliable source. See that button marked "add episode", yes? And that invitation to add content? Well that makes it a user-contributed project, not sure if you're familiar with those, meaning info can be added by any bozo. Ironholds (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if the wording was overly harsh, it was late. I agree that the content is very thin, but there are other options than defaulting to delete. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the tone of my reply as well - similar reasoning really, I'd been awake for 22 hours at that point. Ironholds (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Redirect until such time as reliable sources (not IMDB) confirm this. Probably the simplest way to resolve this until it's unabigously inclusion-worthy? Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Easy merge/redirect, probably until the whole first season airs. Else why split it at all? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila Gallagher

The result was convert to disambig to City of London School and merge what we can into said article. I'd appreciate it if somebody else can do this for me; I've got to run. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 03:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sheila Gallagher

(Find sources: "Sheila Gallagher" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The main source for this article is a school newsletter. The only credible claim to notability is that she has an MBE. WP:ANYBIO suggests that a "a notable award or honor" might be a valid reason for notability. However, the Order of the British Empire is given to a lot of people each year, so I'm not sure that a lower level MBE is "notable" in itself. I couldn't find any reliable sources, other than mirrors of the Wikipedia article. The main argument for keeping this is that it's a quirky and likable article - but that's probably the start of a slippery slope. SilkTork *^YES! 16:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Second-guessing the merits of apparently notable awards will lead to much more trouble than it's worth, and I have great difficulty believing that these awards are in general less notable than, say, the members of Category:Pornographic_film_awards or the many beauty pageant honors that Wikipedia catalogs. There are users out there who will want to be able to look up every recipient, just as there are those who want to be able to look up every major league baseball player. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see some point in having a List of MBE recipients - but even that we don't have, as the number of MBE recipients goes into the thousands, and such a list might violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NLIST; but having an article on each MBE recipient would not be possible as there is not enough information. I believe that those in Category:Members of the Order of the British Empire are already notable for something other than their MBE. Also bear in mind that most newspapers when reporting the New Years List, will pick out the most notable, and ignore the rest, as in this example. This article needs to stand by the basic criteria. I don't think the lower ranks of the Order of the British Empire count as notable. While The Times publishes the full list, being a name on list is not "significant coverage". And bear in mind that local papers publish the names of students who have been granted a university degree, and we don't have an article on every person who have been awarded a degree, even though we could find at least two reliable sources to verify each claim (the local newspaper and the university). SilkTork *^YES! 10:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
~~Weak delete~~. All of the references are broken links so most of this in unverifiable. I did find one hit on GNews from the Evening Standard which backs up the claim of being the City of London's only lollipop lady, but I'm not sure this is a good enough claim without a proper stab at the WP:GNG. (One article in the Evening Standard isn't enough.) For me, the decider is that the article is so horribly unencyclopaedic, and the notability is so iffy, that if there is an article to be made out of this you might as well delete the whole lot and start all over again. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've since fixed the broken links. Qwfp (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... Apart from the Evening Standard Coverage, most of the rest of the coverage seems to come from City Lights, which is the newsletter of the City of London School, which she's sort of associated with ... Okay, merge with this article, into the Notable People section, unless someone has a better idea for where to put it. All we really need to know is that she's the only lollipop lady in the City on London and she got an MBE for her service. Her remarks on the opening of the Millennium Bridge, whilst appropriate for the Evening Standard article, are really too trivial for an encyclopaedia. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep Per Hullaballoo. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Hullaballoo's argument amounts to saying that other stuff exists which is less notable. She's a crossing guard, who has managed a very small place on the honours list at a very low level of distinction, which is awarded to hundreds of thousands of people [16]. Her enduring historical notability is basically zero. Wikipedia is not meant for trivia or directories. Ray^Talk 21:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. You're misreading my argument. There's a big difference between "other stuff exists" which is less notable and "other stuff exists" which is less notable, but is recognized by consensus as notable enough for Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  - Reply You're making a comparison to other stuff, nonetheless. We should address notability of the subject of the article independently, rather than sinking to lowest-common-denominator thinking. Ray^Talk 22:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Multiple non-trivial stories in mainstream press = notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I count major stories in a school newspaper (hopefully not redefined as mainstream press, whatever one thinks of the quality of mainstream press these days), a passing mention in the Evening Standard where she's quoted in one paragraph about a bridge, and being included on the honours reporting lists for the Times and the Herald, purely in list form. I don't consider getting quoted, and being included in a list, nontrivial. Ray^Talk 22:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Multiple non-trivial stories in mainstream press = notable", but we don't have that situation in this case. As Ray points out above, the main newspaper source is the school paper, and The Times simply lists her name along with hundreds of other people. SilkTork *^YES! 22:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Convert to disambig page something like:

Sheila Gallagher may refer to:

Sheila Gallagher MBE, school crossing patrol officer for the City of London School in central London, England
Sheila Jackson (previously Sheila Gallagher), a character in the British TV drama Shameless

I agree with above arguments that an MBE is too minor and awardees too numerous for that alone to confer automatic notability per WP:ANYBIO, and that there isn't the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:BIO#Basic criteria. There's a hatnote concerning the Shameless character on the article already, so if the article were deleted we'd need to re-create a redirect or a disambig page. I can't see any need to delete the article's history first, and not doing so leaves the editors of City of London School free to re-use some of the present text if they so choose. Qwfp (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This makes sense. I support this solution. SilkTork *^YES! 15:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment -- I have grave doubts as to whether the award of an MBE qualifies a person as notable: a lot are awarded, but this issue cannot be addreesed in the context of an AFD for a particular recipient. However a number of dab pages that I created have subsequently been deleted: if there are only two entries a capnote does the job better. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Her reputation is almost limited, only within the city. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom of Power Treaty

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom of Power Treaty

(Find sources: "Freedom of Power Treaty" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

A fictional treaty that was mention for a few weeks in primary sources (mainly the weekly series 52 and for about two issues of Green Lantern) and never heard of again. There is nothing to say about it beyond plot summary because third party discourse has never occurred. Cameron Scott (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge to 52 (comics) - Sharp962 (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

Delete Non-notable in-universe detail. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete, plot device, 41 Google hits, utterly non-notable. Abductive (reasoning) 04:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dose Of Adolescence

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dose Of Adolescence

(Find sources: "Dose Of Adolescence" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Delete as clear failure of WP:MUSIC. Another editor contested the speedy tag placed there. I42 (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hector Zagal

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hector Zagal

(Find sources: "Hector Zagal" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:PROF. CronopioFlotante (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —CronopioFlotante (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. He seems to pass the general notability guideline. See this Google News archive search. If the blog http://hzagal.blogspot.com/ is by the subject of the article, it may also be worth mentioning. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Withdraw nomination. Thank you Eastmain. After reading some of the links you left on my talk page, I agree that Hector Zagal satisfies WP:N. I was focusing too narrowly on WP:PROF. I wouldn't add the blog at http://hzagal.blogspot.com/ before further verification. There is no way of knowing if it is our Hector Zagal. There is no link from his university webpage to this blog. Also, although probably a joke, the blogger profile, lists Agriculture as his industry. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novotek

The result was keep. The article needs expansion, notability is stated. A merge would not be too useful. Tone 14:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Novotek

(Find sources: "Novotek" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

fails WP:N and WP:ORG keystoneridin! (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep as stated in the article, the company is listed on the Swedish stock exchange. Publicly traded companies are almost always notable, and a quick search ([17]) reveals this one is no exception. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Sqwedish stock exchange listings. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep per User:ThaddeusB's argument Francium12 (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usmene predaje u Bosni i Hercegovini

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Usmene predaje u Bosni i Hercegovini

(Find sources: "Usmene predaje u Bosni i Hercegovini" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Has been listed at pages needing translation for two weeks now and hasn't been translated Jac16888 ^Talk 01:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, the page has been replaced with a machine translation, however generally we don't allow machine translations since they are of such poor quality, otherwise I would have done it myself, as the article now stands its still barely understandable--Jac16888 ^Talk 03:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It can always be reverted back. I had it so that we can assess whether it's notable. The subject seems of some interest, but I haven't looked into it yet. Have you? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to know whether the topic is notable, given the current state of the machine translation. I sort of hate to have an AfD decision to delete, given the uncertainty. That said, a search for Esme Smailbegović on Google Scholar returns one journal article and one book that mention the name. The book seems to be cited in the Bosnian language version of the page. Still, that's a bit below what I'd like to see to establish notability. I'm therefore going to suggest that the page be deleted without prejudice against reintroducing with better sourcing & translation. Cnilep (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Certainly, this is a notable topic, but the article needs to be rewritten from scratch, and, it seems to me that even a translation of the original article won't do. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete G5 creation of a banned user PhuntsokKongtsa2000 (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC) comment from indef'ed block evading sock removed Syrthiss (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. -Yupik (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Hobo and The Freight Trains

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Hobo and The Freight Trains

(Find sources: "Johnny Hobo and The Freight Trains" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete I couldn't find anything about the band. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spare Change Records

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Spare Change Records

(Find sources: "Spare Change Records" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Java Remote Desktop

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Java Remote Desktop

(Find sources: "Java Remote Desktop" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete. While there is no question that it exists it does not satisfy WP:N. There are no references and searching the internet does not suggest that any will be found. meshach (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Google shows no evident signs of notability: [18][19]. — Rankiri (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear Jayne (2nd nomination)

The result was no consensus. Two extensions and no overall consensu Nja²⁴⁷ 10:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Jayne

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dear Jayne

Articles for deletion/Dear Jayne (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: "Dear Jayne" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

this group clear fails notability see WP:MUSICBIO and their debut album was cancelled indefinately. There is a lack of distinct sources and coverage to warrant this page. Furthermore there is no evidence to suggest that they have a new release and previous releases reached only just scraped notability because "Rain" charted on billboard at number 99. It should be deleted in due course. Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep as I argued in the first AfD. The group may have "barely" made the charts (twice now), but they still made them, and I don't see why a low chart placing somehow cancels out the WP:MUSIC charts criterion. Furthermore, there are other RS's on the page which fill out some of the biographical information, so it's not as if Billboard is the only thing there. Chubbles (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

comment WP:MUSICBIO clearly states the criteria for notability, it must go beyond having one low charted song. Having a whole article based on the fact that they had JUST ONE confirmed release and a cancelled album is not considered notable. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC))
- I think the whole point of having a charted single as a criterion is that an offical chart placing indicates that the group has reached a level of exposure consistent with encyclopedicity; furthermore, the article cites Allmusic, The Stranger, and About.com, which is a decent amount of press notice in addition. I maintain that this is sufficient to be considered notable. Chubbles (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete According to Billboard the group haven't charted, and the link in the article is a dead end. Allmusic says they debuted on the RnB chart but doesn't say where on that chart. I'm not sure if The Stranger is a reliable source as the reviews on the website seem to be user generated content, although I might be wrong on that. All in all, doesn't seem to add up to a great deal of notability. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Billboard recently underwent a site change in which some of its previously publicly available charts were hidden. The article's chart positions are legitimate and would be available in the paper edition, and the current site is actually in error. Chubbles (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to change my !vote if a source or sources are provided that show they had singles which were placed on a national chart as per WP:MUSIC Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Allmusic link ([20]) states that the single hit the R&B charts in January 2008. I'm not currently at liberty to find a library that has back-issues of Billboard at the moment, but I hope this is sufficient. Also, that Stranger article is written by Michaelangelo Matos, who also writes for SPIN and Rolling Stone. It's not user-generated. Chubbles (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment The nominator has just removed the band's second charting single ("Fall Back", which reached the R&B Bubbling Under charts) as unsourced. How do we handle Billboard chart placings when they are no longer public? There is a huge amount of chart data linked to Billboard on Wikipedia which "was" sourced but "isn't" anymore because of the site redesign. However, it would be hugely counterproductive to start deleting positions, or pages, because of this. Chubbles (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

in response to the obviously die-hard Paradiso Girls fan above who obviously doesn't want anything of the group's to be deleted, there is no sources for the song "Fall Back". The bubbling under hot 100 chart is only calculated upto 100 because together with the billboard hot 100 it makes the top 200 singles. e.g. number 8 on the bubbling under chart is equivalent to 108 on the hot 100. If there is no independent source which says the song had charted then it has to be treated as uncharted. we can just keep articles because someone said they saw it chart but it now longer does anymore. And actually "Fall Back" was nominated for deletion because it is a stub, Wikipedia clearly states that there must be sufficiant information to warrant an album/song having its own page. One sentance and an infobox does not meet this requirement. and please can you stop making comments on this discussion and allow other users to independently give their opinions/votes(Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

I'm fine with the "Fall Back" article being merged here, provided this article is kept. The chart positions are verifiable, because Billboard publicly published them (both in paper and online). If the online charts are privatized, the information is still verifiable, and the fact that my local library's music department is closed and I cannot physically check the paper issues does not change that fact. Please note that "someone" includes the person who first nominated this for deletion: in the first AfD, the nominator included a link to the Billboard page showing that the group charted at #99. The continued doubt over the chart placings, I think, is rather Kafkaesque. Lastly, I'm not stopping anyone else from commenting; it just doesn't matter enough to anyone else to bother. Now, off to check out that Paradiso Girls single... Chubbles (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Del Mar

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Del Mar

(Find sources: "Elizabeth Del Mar" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. She doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO criteria 2 because a CAVR Award is not "a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Pornographic film awards or Category:Film awards". Epbr123 (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per Nom. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep Notability established in her field. Award winning "actress" *cough* *cough*. She is notable and the article should be kept and probably expanded with a fuller description of her contributions., such as they are. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

She hasn't won an award, and the article can't be expanded if she hasn't had any coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete This seems to be an award-losing, non-notable adult film performer as currently written. TruthGal (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Per nom, Capitalismojo (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, nom's initial comments say all that's necessary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pumas (film)

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pumas (film)

(Find sources: "Pumas (film)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The prod was contested. Fails WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ ~~Pumas (film) is a 2011 project only now in development. This artilce is waaaay too premature. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)~~

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - all we've got is the lead and a one-line plot summary, no significant coverage elsewhere. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep Seems notable to me. Already getting coverage in reliable sources. Premature to delete it anmd it's already received substantial coverage in reliable sources including Variety [21]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- That looks an awful lot like a brief news article, which is hardly "significant coverage". 81.110.104.91 (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There are whole articles about the movie in major publications. That doesn't seem trivial to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep Changed my opinion and have struck my 'delete' above. The anonymous IP's response to User:ChildofMidnight got me looking. It seems the film is indeed getting enough coverage to perhaps just sneak in as one of those rare but accepted exceptions to NFF. Seattle Times (official blog of their film critic), The National, National Ledger. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. The sources aren't terribly trivial, but they are not particularly substantial either. I do not think that they are sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of deletion that attends films in this stage of (pre)-production. If it starts filming as anticipated than it will likely garner more coverage and be appropriately recreated. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Not a tremendous amount of coverage, but should be enough to warrant retention of the article. Rlendog (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imno ng Cabuyao

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Imno ng Cabuyao

(Find sources: "Imno ng Cabuyao" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails WP:LYRICS. Possible copyright infringement, copyright violation from original author. Author did not die 70 years ago per Philippine laws, so the copyright owner is still the composer/author of the song. JL 09^{Talk to me!} 13:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete copyvio Shii (tock) 21:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_23&oldid=311007346"

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 23

Contents

[edit] Upcoming movies

[edit] David Albouy

[edit] Satanism (disambiguation)

[edit] List of films set in the future

[edit] Celebrity Big Brother 2010 (UK)

[edit] Shelene Atanacio

[edit] James Fraser (footballer)

[edit] John Jack Black

[edit] Primera Division de clubes de la promocion Campoalto 2013

[edit] Alfa-Tsentr

[edit] Dennis Baron

[edit] Momed Al Hawsawi

[edit] Shimmer (hardware)

[edit] BioMOBIUS

[edit] Shvoong

[edit] Something I Can Never Have

[edit] BIHF

[edit] Qiz (wrestler)

[edit] Comparison of BitTorrent sites

[edit] Interpretations of Fight Club

[edit] Shirley Strawn

[edit] Ahdade

[edit] Favorpals

[edit] Chia Jani

[edit] Dana Sterling

[edit] Ernesto Piedras

[edit] Samahang Kapatid

[edit] Dr. C. M. Agrawal

[edit] Part (haircut)

[edit] Supernatural (season 1)

[edit] NoLove

[edit] Baljaffray

[edit] Ecomarche

[edit] Écomarché

[edit] Tony Patterson

[edit] Asil training camp

[edit] Antonio Bryan

[edit] Ondicom

[edit] Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway

[edit] Playbackups

[edit] Noor Ahmed Pechuho

[edit] Family Guy and Philosophy: A Cure for the Petarded

[edit] An Untitled Story

[edit] EA portal

[edit] Brent Matthews

[edit] Tsuyoshi Shimamura

[edit] Miss Intercontinental

[edit] Podget

[edit] Matija "Dace" Pavlovic

[edit] Crowdspring

[edit] Story Of The Naga king

[edit] DJ Panic

[edit] The Kirby House

[edit] The Station (YouTube)

[edit] Bus Master-Transit Bus's Bus Gallery

[edit] The Gadget Maker

[edit] Pet First Aid

[edit] Saints in Methodism

[edit] Racism in early rock music

[edit] Kieran Kelly

[edit] Me Plus One (Annie song)

[edit] Eleven Eleven

[edit] List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman Cast and Crew

[edit] List of The Beautiful Life : TBL episodes

[edit] Sheila Gallagher

[edit] Freedom of Power Treaty

[edit] Dose Of Adolescence

[edit] Hector Zagal

[edit] Novotek

[edit] Usmene predaje u Bosni i Hercegovini

[edit] Johnny Hobo and The Freight Trains

[edit] Spare Change Records

[edit] Java Remote Desktop

[edit] Dear Jayne

[edit] Elizabeth Del Mar

[edit] Pumas (film)

[edit] Imno ng Cabuyao

Personal tools