Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 16: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:42, 16 March 2009

< 15 March	17 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pussycat Dolls: Greatest Hits

Completing nom for ip editor - reason given, Article is Hoax and no reliable sources exist. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. twirligig_T to^the C 18:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC & WP:CRYSTAL. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Crystal. It also smells like a WP:Hoax. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris_Woollams

Unreferenced self-promotion / advertorial topazg (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. The charity he founded, Canceractive, may be notable though (about 100 Google news hits for Canceractive). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I think the founder of a known charity is notable. If you don't like the way the article is written - fix it! Puca (talk)
Delete per WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge the relevant text to Canceractive, which might be notable ([1], [2]). No other activities appear to have received significant coverage by reliable sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Program Authority

no sources; orphaned; non-notable —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination appears flawed to me. "No sources"—I see 76,000 google hits. "Orphaned"—not grounds for deletion. That leaves "non-notable". What steps has the nominator taken to comply with WP:BEFORE?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial coverage from reliable sources. Possibly a dicdef, but definition not clear from article so a straight delete okay with me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Presently unsourced, but I see clear potential for an article. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
on what basis would you create an article without violating WP:OR? Do you have some reliable source you haven't told us about? —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 15:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Asked for help User_talk:THF#Program_Authority_up_for_AfD here - Power.corrupts (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. Meh. I don't really know what one would say beyond a dictionary definition (and the dictionary definition in the article as it currently stands is far from precise; the term arises far more often in terms of whether control over funding should be in block grants to states, e.g., this passing mention). It's an orphan, so it's not like deleting this article wouldn't be instantly cauterizing. Perhaps someone could write a real article about this that wouldn't be better placed in whatever article we have about the federal budgeting process, and if WP:HEY happens now or later, I'll change my !vote, but I don't see the potential others are mentioning. If it sticks, the article should be moved to Program authority. THF (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfterLogic XMail Server

Was up for PROD as a non-notable product. DePRODed without comment. No RS references. I am not seeing RS coverage in the first few pages of Google searching, just primary sources and download sites. DanielRigal (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom as the editor who added the {{prod}} nomination, subsequently removed by article creator. Toddst1 (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my search has the same result as nom's - I don't see notability. The author's talk page discloses an SPA account adding material about AfterLogic Corporation (deleted as spam), AfterLogic WebMail (also at AfD) and this product. User has been given a level 3 warning, and has not created any new article since. JohnCD (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable product also probably breaches WP:COI. Acebulf (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I get 13.700 Ghits for "AfterLogic XMail Server". Overwhelming majority are independent, and I see no reason to assume that the info on the page should not be factually correct, it is certainly verifiable by tech buffs. With the many hits, I assume that the product has such a penetration in the Linux (or whatever) community that a Wikipedia article is warrented. I see no promotion, advertising or spam. Maybe it's a WP:SPA, maybe the creator has WP:COI - and that should definitely have been disclosed by the editor - but I cannot see that this has influenced, skewed or tainted the article, factual as it is. I cannot see that own interest have been advanced at the detriment of the interests of Wikipedia. I'm likely a minority around here, but tag with refimprove and keep Power.corrupts (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The overwhelming majority of those ghits are certainly not independent - they are download sites. If you exclude the word "download" you get a more realistic 70 hits (i.e. 99.5% of the 13,700 are eliminated) and after looking through the list I can't find one independent reliable source amongst them. There's also nothing from Google News. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Du Pont family

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

The result was redirect to Mario Vazquez. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Shot (song)

No evidence of notability for this single. Did not chart [3]. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs TheClashFan (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment according to the Mario Vazquez article, this song "by early March was hovering around #58 on Mediabase 24/7's CHR/Pop chart", so it's apparently not quite accurate to say it didn't chart at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've done a search on the internet and cannot find where MediaBase lists their charts from this period. It hasn't charted on the IFPI or chartstats site either. I should note the main article doesn't link reference where they obtained the chart position from, making it impossible to verify the claim. (On another note the wikipedia article on Mediabase contains a dead link to their main page). TheClashFan (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to artist. Mediabase doesn't have archives of its charts, so its position would be impossible to verify. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album, Mario Vazquez (album), since the song fails WP:MUSIC. Aspects (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable non-charting song. JamesBurns (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 14:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability per WP:NSONGS. A-Kartoffel (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Improved sufficiently tht the delete arguments are no longer persuasive DGG (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zamboanga Golf and Country Club

This is a copy of parts of Golf course. The name ("Zamboanga Golf and Country Club") would indicate the purpose of the article would be to advertise the given golf course. Bluemask (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Originally PRODed (reason copied here) by User:LinguistAtLarge [4]; PROD notice removed by 203.111.232.86 (talk · contribs) [5] --Bluemask (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—StaticVision (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Why do I have this strange déjà vu feeling? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since the article has from its inception contained only copyvio content—uncredited paste from another WP article, violating the GFDL. No prejudice against creation of a proper article at this title, as it looks as though the place has some claim to notability (oldest course in Philippines, founded by Black Jack Pershing). Deor (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've stripped out the irrelevant info and started a brief article on the actual subject matter. I suggest this AFD is closed and it's renominated if need be on other grounds. AndrewRT(Talk) 14:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pruning and rewrite by AndrewRT saves it - good job. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ciguatera (manga)

Non-notable manga. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --KrebMarkt 07:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ciguatera (manga). 6 Vol series by Minoru Furuya. ANN. No licensor in UK/US, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. I'm holding my vote as this article was created less than 24 hours ago by a new user and already in Afd. This user at first passed by the anime/manga requested article department [6] then opted to create the article himself/herself. This article already withstanded a speedy delation A1. I knew that Wikipedia like to warmly welcome new user but that one is a hellish fire welcome. --KrebMarkt 07:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You shouldn't try to delete something its first day out. People are working on it now, so just leave it be. Dream Focus 13:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely fails WP:BK. Unnotable manga series with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Whether its an editors first article is completely irrelevant and a red-herring to the argument, particularly when this request WAS already rejected. They also noted on the talk page "I just made this page to at least get some other input on this manga." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't rejected just that this contributor didn't wait for our assessment and yes it would have failed in my assessment --KrebMarkt 14:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep manga from notable artist (Minoru Furuya, creator of Ping-Pong Club), published by Japan's biggest publisher (Kodansha), and long enough to be collected in 3 books. I'm not really seeing what the problem here is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not meet WP:BK. Notability of the author is certainly not so significant that all their works are instantly notable, and who publishes it is completely irrelevant in this case. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manga can't inherit the notabity of its author nor the notability of another manga of that same author. This won't help to write verifiable article content wise. Better use that prize as argument of notability for the author article or for Ping-Pong Club. --KrebMarkt 14:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to ANN (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2005-12-22/9th-japanese-media-arts-festival-winners) this manga was an "official recommendation" at the 9th Japanese Media Arts Festival (see also [7]). Okay, it didn't WIN that year, but its a pretty official mention. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it didn't win anything, and one minor mention does not make it notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the weakest archievement of that festival, see Japan Media Arts Festival. Only the Grand, Excellence and Encouragement prizes are worth mention. --KrebMarkt 14:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who came up with that standard? _dk (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Which part of WP:BK does this pass? I think I may be missing something with so many keep voters. Can someone clarify please? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 14:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've given enough time for people to inform me of how this passes WP:BK. After researching, looking for both English and Japanese sources, I was unable to find any and will therefore vote delete. However, I wish to warn the nominator of this AfD against nominating articles this quickly. I suggest waiting at least a week before using AfD or PROD templates. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 21:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The jury recommendation is the only thing I'm finding in English for this series, aside from scanlations -- hardly even any forum buzz. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Non-notable and stupid does not belong in an encyclopedia. Puca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Please try to use arguments other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT] please. FingersOnRoids♫ 00:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BK. Eusebeus (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BK. Hasn't yet made an impact in the world of books (and in the world itself). Them From Space 18:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi all I'm the one who created the article. I read the rules for posting a new article and I thought I had followed them, but I guess I had overlooked some stuff such as the notability of the content.The reason I decided to create the article is really simple: When I was once searching for information on this title years ago, all I ever found was an article on fish poison. I had no clue as to what this manga was about but was curious about what it was all about. I had no other way of knowing what it was about other than reading the manga for myself and I thought I would share this information so that if anyone else were to try looking for Ciguatera on wikipedia then they would not just be lead to an article on fish poisoning, they would at least know that it was a manga and who it was created by. I know that my attemps at a summary will win no awards, and I didn't expect them to, I just wanted other interested readers to have an idea as to what the book is about.

Also I've had this account for a few years, but never bothered logging into it, rather I would just edit it as a guest. I've been adding small edits to wikipedia for a while now (Like small updates and obvious grammatical/factual errors or expanding on under developed points. Since I started school though the college IP has been blocked from making edits so I was forced to login. So yes it was my first major article written, but not my first time editing.

Also I just read over the notability and it says clearly on point 5 that: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable."

The author Minoru Furuya Did indeed win an award in 1996. I do believe that that counts as historically significant?

--BOMEz (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that does not count as being historically significant. Historical significant is significance in history (like Shakespeare) and/or it seen as a pioneer, notable among peers, etc. Not a minor contemporary author who won a one time award.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BK says for Non-contemporary books

From a pragmatic standpoint, the vast majority of books upon which articles are written which invite a notability judgment call and which find their way to articles for deletion, are from the modern era. Nevertheless, the notability of books written or published much earlier may occasionally be disputed and the criteria proposed above intended primarily for modern books may not be as suitable. We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature.

So, ignore all the points it doesn't make, and focus on a more common sense approach. Focus on the fame its had, thus, its sales figures(enough to publish 6 volumes someone said), and being featured in a massively popular and influential manga magazine. I'd say this article is a definite keeper. Dream Focus 21:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very clearly not for this book, it specifically speaks to older works which this is not. Again, no valid reason to ignore the normal WP:BK criteria that all other manga can easily meet, nor does "non-contemporary" allow for any such criteria as you slated, which are specifically not allowed by consensus at WP:BK. Sales figures irrelevant, regardless of age, nor can you claim to "focus on the fame it once had" when it IS a contemporary book and still on-going. Obviously falls within the standard WP:BK criteria. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up what the word contemporary meant. Nevermind. Thought it meant something else. I still say keep, do the rules of common sense, it seldom manga gets mentioned in the reviews, so the notability guidelines are unfairly bias against them. Dream Focus 21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The manga is licensed in Taiwan and Hong Kong under two separate publishers. _dk (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I recall this getting quite a bit of buzz at the time. Might be worth scouring Japanese sites and trying to find a source or two. If only Japanese newspapers kept archives online...borderline books like this would actually have a shot. Doceirias (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches for the manga's title and author's name in both English and Kanji/Kana are not coming up with any useful hits to indicate coverage by reliable sources. It may be a potential redirect to the author's article, but there is nothing here to merge as the article is entirely a plot summary. --Farix (Talk) 02:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The searches didn't even come up with the Japanese Media Arts Festival jury recommendation? I agree that it isn't enough to demonstrate notability on its own, but it is coverage, and if it didn't show up that makes your searches seem not entirely reliable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sally Spectra. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie M Designs

No real world information, references, media coverage, no notability outside the show. Creator just copied information from Spectra Fashions which was merged. Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spectra Fashions. (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I have this right, this is basically another name for the same organization as in the other AFD. If that one is merged, then this one should be too. Since the show isn't available you can't reliably cite episodes as sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editor who created just copied the merged material into a new article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge' with Sally Spectra as per similar reasoning in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spectra Fashions. Thanks to Mgm for this clarification. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Brigitte Bonomi

Potentially fails WP:BIO. Cited references appear to be examples of the subject's work rather than articles about the subject. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete really unimpressive IMDB entry: [8]. While she has interviewed some notable people, there are no sources which are actually about her. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty by her, but unable to find any significant coverage of her in reliable sources. Maralia (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Four hits in GNews, two of them articles written by her, the other two nothing at all. Looks like an attempt to claim notability by association. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Barry

Potentially fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep principal cast member on the somewhat notable series Mine All Mine, though that's about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This article is of a notable person and I agree that it should be retained. Puca (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What makes him notable? Why do you think it should be retained? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero coverage in reliable, third-party, sources, fails to meet the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Minor character on Mine All Mine, not significant --Mikej999 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aapu

Declined speedy. Non-notable neologism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standard neologism that should be removed.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it's not a neologism, it falls under WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Matt (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete slang dicdef. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO, WP:NAD JohnCD (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Busset

Well-sourced but Wikipedia is not a directory of genealogical entries. Fails notability guidelines. Propose userifying in case original user wants to continue to develop and find notability. tedder (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and transwiki. Ottre 06:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hold your horses, while I get someone to answer my question on |What Wikipedia is not about genealogical entries. I.e. why not allow genealogical entries? One of you could even make a stab at answering it. Sanpitch (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the most practical terms, it's because there are six billion people out there, most of whom have never done anything to catch the attention of anyone outside their immediate social circle. There are countless billions more who are deceased and of little note to those outside their social circle. Having information on any of these billions of people, even if it's verifiable, wouldn't do a whole lot to improve the encyclopedia, except to an extremely narrow audience for each article, and would make it more difficult to maintain and navigate the encyclopedia as a whole. Genealogy information is ultimately of greater utility to those who care about it (and those who don't) if placed in a more specialized resource such as Wikipeople.--Father Goose (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia isn't a directory of dead people :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 by Jimfbleak , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Select Business Solutions

Removing from the speedy deletion db-spam queue. It's not written like a brochure, but there are multiple issues to address at AfD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Unreferenced article about a non-consumer software business with absolutely no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as db-corp A7Porturology (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Rents Now Coalition

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 (agreement) 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 may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Wikipedia ain't here to host activist websites. The topic of this article has no lasting encyclopedic notability and is clearly doing nothing more than promoting the campaign (whose internet presence is a promotional website and a facebook group with 158 members). As a student at the University in question, I'd never even heard of the "organization" until I came across the article. The main author has some WP:CoI problems here (without saying any more, facebook clears it up, but see photo upload). Note, the guy's website actually links the wikipage from its mainpage (http://lowerrentsnow.org). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This is made tough because there are a load of references, ~~but I'm not sure I saw any of them that qualify as WP:RS.~~ More importantly, a simple mention in a paper isn't enough. If there's some widespread coverage in a notable source, then it should stay. Someone should point those out now though. Shadowjams (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, for transparency: I am a member of this group. I dispute the basis for this AfD request. Let me systematically go through the reasoning.

Claim: "Wikipedia ain't here to host activist websites". Wikipedia is not hosting an activist website here. There is a link to Lower Rents Now Coalition from [9], but: so what? The website for this group is entirely at said link, and spread across multiple pages of content.

Claim: "whose internet presence is a promotional website and a facebook group with 158 members". Of course our official Internet presence includes a promotional website! Regarding facebook groups, these aren't ever considered a reliable/notable source; e.g. "I just lost the game" has 100,000 members, but that was considered irrelevant to showing the notability of The Game (mind game). (Also, the figure given was wrong: it is currently 185, not 158). But if you're implying the only internet mention of this group is the above, then I dispute that, which I'll do in more detail below.

Claim: the topic of this article has "no lasting encyclopedic notability". Please read WP:NOTE: "Notability is not temporary. If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic". Additionally, coverage (so far) ranges from February 2007 to March 2009, over two years. Pndapetzim says, "I'd never even heard of the "organization" until I came across the article". Um, so? That fact that you have not heard of something does not prove something is not notable, even though you live in St Andrews. Again, I will go into coverage and notability more below.

Pndapetzim says, "The main author has some WP:CoI problems here". OK, I admit that CoI editing is "strongly discouraged" (though not banned). However, I reckon more important to consider than CoI is the effect of a CoI, which is an increased possibility of bias (especially because WP:NPOV is a "fundamental" principal, not something which is just "strongly" recommended cf. CoI). The thing is, I would maintain this article has real substance, so where there are neutrality problems, it would be better to fix those (by e.g. by expanding the article by elaborating on 'the other side' is, or at least pointing out specifically the bits that have NPoV problems, or otherwise) than to delete the entire article. When I made my first change to this article, I acknowledged my potential bias, and encouraged someone without such a CoI to ensure the article meets NPoV (see [10]).

Now, regarding notability and reliability of sources, which Shadowjams was interested in. There is multiple coverage in The Courier, a mainstream newspaper, with circulation 80,000, according to the its Wikipedia page). We can find three of the Courier articles online. In chronological order: [11], [12], [13]. In addition, there was coverage on 10 and 11 December 2008 (you could probably buy a back issue if you want). Quoting WP:NOTE, "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence [of notability]". I claim that these Courier articles (maybe particularly the middle linked one), including the ones only available in print, meet the WP:NOTE criterion of "Significant coverage" (the definition: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive"). Also, the articles likely meet WP:NOTE the criteria of being "Reliable" (since they were in a mainstream newspaper), and are "Sources", because they are a secondary sources, and "Independent of the subject", as they are in a mainstream, commercial, newspaper. Note these Courier articles are not opinion pieces.

Other hints of notability, especially to counter the implication in the deletion request that the entire campaign is merely "the [one] guy's" unnoticable project: The group from the page up for deletion has been discussed multiple times by the Students Association at the university in question (see [14]). Also, the planning application the university put in was opposed by hundreds of students (see [15]). After the St Andrews Community Council was approached by the group (see: [16]), the Community Council also objected to the planning application (see [17]). This is not completely un-notable, because the St Andrews Community Council is considered by (Fife) Council to be a "Consultee" (not just an ordinary person/group), when considering planning applications and the like. (See the word "Consultee" in the row near the top of [18] for the document titled "CONSULTATION RESPONSE", published 09 Dec 2008.)

Almost finally, I would consider a lot of the content on the university's website about accommodation redevelopment, at [19], to be in response to the negative publicity generated by the group in question against the university's accommodation plans. Also, this month, there was an opinion piece by a member of the group (er, me) in the magazine St Andrews in Focus, which has distribution of over 7000 and estimated readership over 25,000, according to [20].

In summary, coverage the group in question's letters and opinion pieces have not been insignificant; coverage has lasted over two years; hundreds of students have been involved (there was also a petition in association with the students association, which got over 1,000 signatures (see page 5 of [21], or the Courier articles), or roughly 17% of the student body at the time. Importantly, there has also been plenty of detailed, repeated, secondary, non-biased mainstream coverage in regional papers. Nicol (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Nicol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete of all the sources provided in the article, I could only find 4 which actually are about this organization ([22][23][24][25]), the rest is a big load of WP:SYNTH. These are all news stories covering a series of small protests. In all of the news articles, the sources do not do more than mention the organization, mostly in passing when a member is quoted. As such, the organization has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Fails WP:ORG. -Atmoz (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the well-argued points made by Atmoz. Eusebeus (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete echoing Atmoz, I don't feel this meets the bar of significant coverage. Maralia (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have to concur with Nicol above, although I, too, am a member of the group. I feel that he has answered the concerns about significant coverage very well. Basically, the group's been covered in well-circulated local-area newspapers several times in the past few years, members of the group have had letters in national papers, and the group has led relatively large actions (protests and planning application objections) which have mobilised a significant proportion of the student body. It has also met with several key members of University staff and Students Union officials to negotiate on the issue. Perhaps the article could be edited to be a bit more neutral, but this can be done and deletion avoided, in my view. Josherick3 (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Josherick3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete as per Atmoz Power.corrupts (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telly Hughes

Sideline sports reporter but no assertion of notability. I speedied once (at the title of Telly hughes), upon recreation a speedy nomination (by another user) was contested. Only 600 Google hits. Esteffect (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search didn't turn up much. One very minor mention I saw showed Hughes hasn't even had his position for more than a couple weeks. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

***Delete - no assertion of notability. CopaceticThought (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable living person bio. Odie5533 (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and not referenced --Muhammad(talk) 03:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I rewrote and referenced the article, which was previously inaccurate garbage. Subject has been a sports anchor at multiple regional sports networks and has done some radio work. Reliable source coverage exists, (e.g. Gnews hits) but is pretty thin -- there are a couple of mentions in Jet and the New York Times which give a nudge out of purely routine news coverage. He did win a 2008 regional Emmy Award, but I don't know that that alone is enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. if the article does wind up getting deleted, at least we've got an accurate bio for Deletionpedia :) Baileypalblue (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is pages about "famous figures" as significant as famous as Lindsey Thomise at Deletionpedia, not really making it a point worth raising. The fact the New York Times article has "Minority Journalist" in the title says a lot to me. Esteffect (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for clarity, the "deletionpedia" comment was meant to be a joke at my own expense, not a reflection on anyone else or on the AFD. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep after rewrite of article. CopaceticThought (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Notable. Puca (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn per WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Them From Space 18:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, albeit marginal, passes WP:V, plus the regional Emmy. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Mason

Apparent violation of WP:BLP1E (article was created shortly after MyTravel/footballer incident). Rd232 ^talk 04:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - enough evidence of notability provided here that BLP1E no longer applies; expansion of article and adding sources needed instead. Rd232 ^talk 01:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While it is certainly possible for a single event to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, I don't see anything outstanding in this guy's life history at all, other than a history of making bad decisions over and over again in the cockpit. Proxy User (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable unless he writes an autobiography that takes off. Redddogg (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he has written a notable autobiography. . . Rcawsey (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking evidence that he has written a notable autobiography. Nothing else.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete brief blip in the news for getting fired as a pilot for breaking the rules. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Interesting and notable. Puca (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In what way? Proxy User (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Utter tripe that fails most of WP:NOT, not to mention WP:BLP. Physchim62 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as BLP1E. Eusebeus (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was very prominent during the First Gulf War. One of the most memorable British characters of that war, always appearing on the news. Certainly not just notable for one event. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, I'm sorry, but he was not very prominent during the First Gulf War. Where do you get this stuff? Proxy User (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know where you were during the war, but he appeared in the British media all the time. He was adopted as something of a poster boy for the RAF due to his resemblance to WWII fighter pilots. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. An interesting and important Officer from the first Gulf War. He has written an autobigraphical account of the War and led many missions during the war. It's important that Wikipedia maintains articles on important military figures such azs this man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.73.56 (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonesense - There is no evidence that what you say with respect to this guy has any relitionship to reality. Web searches certainly don't support it. Proxy User (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web searches! Oh good grief, why would a web search support anything? He was prominent before the internet really got going in a big way. Using web searches as evidence for the notability of anyone who was prominent before the last decade is spurious in the extreme. Effectively you're saying that the notability threshold of anyone who (or anything which) was around before the internet is much, much higher, which is ludicrous. For anything before the mid-1990s (at the earliest), the web only holds information on subjects which people have chosen to write about! It is not gospel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In practice the interwebs is WP's primary source of verifiable information. Because of this the notability of people notable pre-web is harder to verify; if you have a solution for that, let me know! You can provide offline sources for this case if you have them, but your vague remarks about watching TV are merely WP:OR. Rd232 ^talk 12:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is not true at all. There are things called books and newspapers. I use them for writing Wikipedia articles all the time. In fact, I use them more than internet sources, since they tend to be far more reliable. No policy on Wikipedia says that web-based sources are any more valid than print sources. And this is an AfD discussion - like too many people you are confusing Verifiability, which determines what we put in articles, with Notability, which determines whether we have an article in the first place. They are entirely different things. Verifiability arguments are irrelevant here, since we can easily verify that the man exists; all that matter are notability arguments - whether he is significant enough to have an article on WP. That's what we're discussing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting off topic here, but (a) I merely said the internet is the primary source in practice, not that this was ideal (don't think I implied that either). (b) WP:NOBJ: Notability needs to be verified from reliable sources - this is basic, we don't rely on unsourced assertions of notability. (c) Again, if you have relevant offline or online sources, please cite them. Rd232 ^talk 15:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His existence is verifiable. The fact he has been in the news is verifiable. Whether that coverage makes him notable, however, is subjective. That's the thing about notability - there are no hard and fast rules. That's why we have these debates. How on earth, therefore, could I cite a source that proves he, or anybody or anything else, is notable? That's the ridiculous thing about the deletionists who blithely say "prove he's notable". You simply can't prove or disprove something so subjective. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's an element of interpretation of guidelines, but the guidelines are clear: notability needs showing from sources (WP:NOBJ) and notability relating to one event should be discounted (WP:BLP1E). Rd232 ^talk 16:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep The primary claim of the nominator that this is BLP1E is simply not accurate. There is coverage of Mason's service in the Gulf War, coverage of the accident in Germany, and coverage of the situation with Robbie Savage. The subject meets WP:BIO and is not WP:BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only 2 sources not relating to the MyTravel incident and it is not clear that either is a reliable source; certainly the Promotions one isn't. The RAF Accident Report is a primary source which doesn't demonstrate notability. Rd232 ^talk 16:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are many other sources about his time in the Gulf War though. See for example [26][27][28]. Even if I were to discount the accident there are more than enough sources about his time in the Gulf War. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm, not sure what to do now. That looks the start of showing Gulf War notability; with those in the article I wouldn't have AFD'd it. Not sure how to withdraw the nomination now (and maybe should let it finish now anyway). Rd232 ^talk 16:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The original nom's complaint was of a violation of WP:BLP1E. I also remember Mason being the RAF's poster boy during the Gulf War, however I doubt publications for this exist online. I have found at least three unrelated newspaper articles, from different years, with no mention of the MyTravel incident 1998, 2006, 2007. It seems Mason's self-styled "Biggles" antics have had him (and will probably continue to do so) popping up time and time again. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A genuinely interesting chap notable for his role in the Gulf War, and we haven't heard the last of him. Not a violation of WP:BLP1E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.210.180 (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above IP has only contributed to this AFD (Please replace this message with that template they use in these circumstances). Ryan4314 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very prominent in the media during the first Gulf War. --Jolyonralph (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the originator of the article, I vote keep for the same reason I created it (1) his significance as a Squadron Leader in the first gulf war, which is well referenced particularly off-net, (2) the significance of the case to air safety procedures, which is wholly referenced on-net to him. Nomination on a WP:BLP1E because it was created after the MyTravel created enough on-net references ignores his gulf war service, or the significance of the case to air law - or to HR law. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, now, but it needs much better sourcing. Rd232 ^talk 19:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good news, Rd232 how would you feel about withdrawing your nomination, or do you think the article still needs work? I would imagine it'll take a longer to dig up paper sources, longer than the time-limit left on this AFD I fear, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to withdraw the nomination, and I think a closing admin will draw a fair conclusion from the above discussion. Rd232 ^talk 00:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask any admin to do it, or even just put a little note under your nomination up there :) Ryan4314 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done! Rd232 ^talk 01:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homosocratic

Utter neologism. Google had never heard the word before this article arrived. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep per nom common sense warrants an exception. an obvious conjunctive construct typical of those used in academic publications. scottprovost (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many people in a number of countries are discussing laws related to Homosocratic or professorless institutions of higher education.

I will be happy to tell them that Wikipedia has decided that it is not a word. I understand that you work for universities and the threat of free education scares you. But Wikipedia is not the hoar of the universities or big business. Just because goodle does not have the word means nothing. Google has gone commercial and is not listing sites that do not pay them now. Try to find Free MIT on google. Try to find Free A&M University. They are gone from google but have hundreds of students.

Just leave the word and go fight Freedom and Open Communication elsware. You are the reason for the term wikinazzis. You will find that term on google but not on Wikipedia.Scottprovost (talk) Scottprovost (talk) Scottprovost (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Not entirely true. This Google search tells me that "Scott Provost is the Founder and operator of Free A&M University". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, all mention of Free A&M University was removed from Wikipedia by this Wikinazzi bacause it didn't appear on Google. Scottprovost (talk)

I am today removing the dead (no article linked) reference from list for "* Free A&M University, located in Texas, USA;" because after exhaustive search I have found:
1.) Texas A&M is not "free" and does require tuition.
2.) Texas A&M does not appear to promote any usage of the term "free" in their own self-description.
3.) There does not appear to be a free "agricultural and mechanical" or "A&M" "university" anywhere in Texas, USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.33.234.149 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

that IP address traces to a person who sells CLEP exams under the guise of a free university in violation of Georgia Law similar to the law in Texas we argue we are not subject to. We sell nothing. Quit using Google as a standard. It is no longer.

The term was used at the Institute for General Semantics who publishes General Semantics Bulletin. The publication is not available on the internet and they are not certain the discussion at the conference was included in any publications. They also indicated that just because someone used the obvious conjunction homo-Socratic did not make it a word. They insist that it would be an obvious conjunction and most certainly used over the years but may require a hyphen to be proper. I will continue to look for a better siting Scottprovost (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

As of March 16th 2009 I have not been able to find any references to the word that do not trace back to me. The discussion at the IGS was related to another word autosocratic that is also a created word. It too is an obvious conjunction and both words were being used in the context of discussing neologisms even though they did not use that term. If someone used the term without hearing it from me, I am not aware of it. They insist that it must be a good word with an obvious definition and useful as a quality neologism. But that it should be moved to wherever Wikipedia keeps neologisms until it is accepted into use.

We have students in many countries that use the term when explaining the type of school they go to but they got it from me. I honestly thought it was a real word. Someone even gave me a definition for it.

Whenever I use the term in academic circles, there is no need to give a definition, everyone knows what it means without being told. I think this may be an exception to the rule and may in fact be a word by virtue of it's obvious meaning independent of weather anyone uses it or not.

Maybe Google is not God?

I vote that we let the word exist as an obvious and useful conjunctive word with only one possible meaning that is obvious tomost all who hear it. Scottprovost (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - If Homosocratic is truly a concept discussed in scholarly circles, it would be highly unlikely it wouldn't be found in Google. Do you happen to have any reliable sources supporting your claims that "people in a number of countries are discussing laws related to Homosocratic or professorless institutions of higher education"? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, by the way, since I didn't make that clear. This violates the principles of no original research. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. —An gr 06:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to resolve the claims of importance (or even existence) with the utter lack of anything on Google. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced neologism. Note to article author: it's not that "Wikipedia has decided that it is not a word" - it's undoubtedly a word, but it's a new word and there is no evidence but your assertion that it is in widespread use. Google scholar does not find it. Wikipedia isn't a place for first publication of anything - see No original research and Articles on neologisms and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I did a search (for "homosocratic", "homo-socratic" and "homo socratic") through academic databases (i.e. Academic Search Premier, JSTOR, Project Muse, and others) and found 0 hits. As JohnCD stated, there's no dispute that it's a word, but it's a new word and falls under original research. Start publishing and maybe it will catch on. I may find use for it myself. Who knows, but for now it's a neologism. freshacconci talktalk 11:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are Google results for the word

PALAVRA PUXA PALAVRA: "Ingenuidade" por Cerejinha

- [ Translate this page ]

Para o HomoSocrates aproveitar para incentivar a NATALIDADE, em vez da HOMOSACRAUNIÃO. 17/1/09; Blogger Cerejinha said... Olá...olá. ...

http://outrostemas.blogspot.com/2009/01/ingenuidade-por-cerejinha.html - 23k -

I do not read the language but it is from January 17th :69.39.49.27 (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a blog, which is not considered a reliable source; also, I don't think it's relevant: (a) they are discussing, not education, but a rather kitsch statuette, and (b) the word used is not "homosocratic" but "HomoSocrates", with capitalisation which suggests it is the username of another blogger. JohnCD (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As JohnCD said, the blog is completely unrelated, homosacraunião is a play on words (sacra união = sacred union) referring to the kitsch statuette. - delete, obviously fails WP:V Power.corrupts (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 08:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skruff

Marginally notable band. Some evidence of minimal third-party coverage, but yet to publish an album. Marginal on WP:BAND, hence the AfD. CultureDrone (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: mostly it's myspace type sites they're on. -- Menti fisto 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: MySpace band. Insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability, lacks coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing position. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added four references. The article by Minihan from The Belfast Telegraph is entirely about the band. There is evidence of touring and national radio play in the UK. There is enough here now for WP:MUSIC criterion #1, so keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted because article was improved, and not enough time has passed to allow contributors to reconsider. (4 hours isn't enough time) X clamation point 03:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Paul Erik, what is the second Belfast Telegraph article like? Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a brief mention, really not much more than the descriptor I added to the article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, along with the ref's Paul Erik has added, here are a few more; bbc.co.uk gig review, radio 1, bbc radio ulster, bbc radio foyle, derry journal, and a slightly trivial mention in the belfasttelegraph. More than enough there to pass WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've not heard of them but looking through some of the links makes me think they are probably more notable than initially thought. Also, I note that the speedy deletion was put up within two hours of the article's creation. It has been fleshed out a little since. I also note there's an article in Hot Press (subscription only), and get a decent mention in the Strabane Chronicle. I would therefore recommend that perhaps we wait and see how this article develops before deleting it too hastily. Tris2000 (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be enough independent coverage to satisfy requirements at WP:MUSIC.Nrswanson (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audiophonic visual isolation

Extensive searches for sources verifying this content yield nothing. The article fails to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. Nrswanson (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent third party sources can be produced that verify the article's content.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ~~Lex Coleman~~ Lester Coleman. --Petri Krohn (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no evidence that suggests these two men are the same people.Nrswanson (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Broadweighbabe. The content is entirely unsourced so I think a merger is a bad idea. Inmysolitude (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't google particularly well for WP:N at just 166 hits [29] -- Constructive editor (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Restored dab. yandman 15:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Time Lucky

Vanity of vanities. A company with two "no budget films that star local, unknown teen actors" in production. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, but at least they're somewhat honest and very hopeful. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability grounds. The page should return to being a disambig for the two films of the same name Third Time Lucky (1948 film) and Third Time Lucky (1930 film) Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost as bad as speculative articals about movies and music that might or might not be produced, this company has no finished projects and those that are "in the works" are not in solid production anyway. Maybe in the future they will become "notable", but right now it seems like some high school kids garage project. Proxy User (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7/group. The article even confirms its own utter non-notability, which is refreshingly honest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to restore Lord Cornwallis's original dab page (didn't see that at first). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore back to original dab page, [30]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The original author blanked the page, which I am taking as a CSD:G7 request. Stifle (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Bhola Nathji

From the words of RayAYang (talk · contribs) in his prod nomination:

Subject appears to exist (large number of ghits); nonetheless, this article appears to fail WP:V and WP:BIO. Gnews wasn't able to find anything on him, Gscholar was similarly unavailing, and Gbooks turned up a single book by the subject. Searching no "Shri Nathji" is perilous since that is the name of a major Hindu religion that definitely predates the subject.

NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODer, see rationale above. Ray^Talk 03:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Gradwell

I don't think the article meets WP:ATHLETE. I couldn't find a single online reference to support the article (if an Australian netballer is notable, online sources can be found quite readily); the two references in the article don't even mention her. Would've loved to have gone straight to CSD (A7), but there's arguably some attempt to indicate significance. It was tagged for CSD A7 not long after its creation, but the original author removed the tag and expanded the article. However, Jasmin gradwell was speedily deleted under A7, one day after Jasmine Gradwell was created. Wasn't sure which deletion process to use, so I decided to play it safe and list it here. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 02:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is the "WA Smokefree State Netball League" a fully professional league? If not, I don't see how she could meet WP:ATHLETE. I agree with the nominator that coverage of this person seems pretty thin on the ground. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply: No, the WA State Netball League is an entirely amateur state tournament. – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, I would have to say that this article should be deleted, as she does not meet the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline, and she doesn't meet the general notability guideline either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Amateur athlete not playing at the highest level. I'd also suggest notability not enhanced by dating AFL footballers. Murtoa (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not yet meet WP:ATHLETE. Maybe soon. Vartanza (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira 2009 Tour

As far as I can tell, this is both crystalballing and lacking in notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the artist is obviously notable, in most circumstances I don't see how a list of tour dates is encyclopedic, so Delete, unless someone can point out a reason for this to stay. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and Delete per above. T-95 (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Linguist. twirligig_T to^the C 18:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely fails to establish any sort of encyclopedic notability per the general notability guidelines & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Crystal and WP:Note. (Also, it should be "Shakira 2010 Tour", but that's not relevant.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, official site says no tour dates announced""... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misa Kobayashi

Unnotable person. Fails WP:BIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:N. Failed prod and CSD A7 with both tags removed by User:Dream Focus (non-administrator) with reasons of "has worked as a voice actor on several notable series" and "I object. An actor in three notable series gets an article, so why not voice actors the same way?". Only three minor roles, no sources, and no significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User X! also erased the tag[31], which clearly states, anyone who disagrees with it should do so. You don't have to be an administrator. And why bring that up here? Anyway, I vote *Keep since the person has played a notable part in a significant body of work. Dream Focus 02:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is appropriate to note that an article is a failed Prod and CSD and that the CSD was declined by a non-admin. Also X! is an administrator so it was fine for him to remove it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he said in his edit "rv, csds can be removed by anyone, not just admins.)" Dream Focus 10:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Chizuru Naba does not seem to be a notable character, barely mentioned on List of Negima!: Magister Negi Magi characters , Lilith Sahl is listed as supporting on List of Trinity Blood characters, and I can't find a Hiromi anywhere on the collection of Hell Girl articles, with the exception of an artist who worked on the soundtracks. Which character is the notable one? ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 02:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had a look at this as well and agree with your listed findings on the roles mentioned in the article currently. I did find an additional role not listed on the subject's page but it is listed on the page of the series and seems more significant. The series is Kurau Phantom Memory and it seems the subject voiced one of the main characters (Christmas). There are some other roles listed here but I don't really know enough about anime to know if any others listed are significant. Camw (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the notable role count is two so far now. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick search of the roles and it seems like the Negima and Kurau Phantom Memory role are notable. I'm not sure about Wan Wan Serebu Soreyuke! Tetsunoshin as I have no idea what that's about. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 03:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone here can read Japanese, is this the same person and are there any other roles listed here -> [32] that might be notable? I know another Wiki page isn't a reliable source, but if there is anything of value on that page it might make it easier to look for other sources to check. Camw (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiromi is a one-episode character that appears in episode 9. No other role in the series beyond that. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that on the ANN entry. And I finally found Chizuru. Those Negima character lists need cleaning. There's only one notable role. The ANN entry lists the rest as minor. I'm leaning toward Delete unless more notable roles can be dug up. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources that establish notability. --Sloane (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've added a more complete filmography to the article. However, judging from the list Chizuru Naba is still her most significant role, even if the character is a minor character in the whole Nagima! franchise. --Farix (Talk) 03:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - If the filmography is accurate, seems to me Kobayashi meets the threshold for an up-and-coming voice actor. It's a close call, but I think we should err on the side of inclusion. Proxy User (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I tend toward inclusion on seiyū, but the roles listed in this case are exceedingly minor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pernom: no clear notability. Eusebeus (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more reliable third-party reference sources can be provided to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When all is said and done, she has only had one significant voice acting role (Christmas in Kurau: Phantom Memory). Her role as Chizuru Naba in the various Negima! series isn't that significant as the character is simply a reoccurring background character. This isn't enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. --Farix (Talk) 02:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable roles yet. No prejudice against recreation should this change in the future. Edward321 (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: referenced roles in 14 works notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. So the article must meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline for entertainers, which reads "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". T L Miles (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the requirement of "significant roles"; all except one of those roles was exceedingly minor. Its also not sourced to a reliable reference. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query: I can't seem to find an entry for www.animenewsnetwork.com on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Could you point me to that as well as the definition of "significant roles" in WP:ENTERTAINER? Thanks. T L Miles (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus seems clear after 9 days total & I myself see no real notability DGG (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Carvajal

Article fails to meet the notability guidelines set at WP:N. Contested prod. The only Google News hits[33] for "Nelson Carvajal" are for a Colombian teacher that was murdered. The only source for the article besides the subject's website is an iMDB entry, which with an IMDB Pro account, is just another self-published source. The acting roles are trivial and fail to meet the "significant roles" standard of WP:ENTERTAINER. The subjects filmmaking and writing fail to meet WP:CREATIVE. dissolve ^talk 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to have been only tangentially involved with a handful of borderline-notable/non-notable projects. -Drdisque (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:Creative. None of his roles in film or TV have been "significant roles". Untick (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suryamukhi

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Eusebeus (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. It also says the movie will be released in 2008. Acebulf (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep rewrite it . --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreleased movie not on IMDB, and apparently not even casted yet (per article) so this is future speculation at best. See WP:CRYSTAL. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. PhilKnight (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Island Defense

Doesn't explain why it is notable, no sourcing, unencyclopedic. TheAE talk/sign 02:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; no references are given, and the general state and tone of the article give me little reason to believe they exist. The company has no hits on Google News. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable Warcraft 3 map. A few maps break the surface of notability (DotA, for instance), but this one does not by any means. Incidentally, Drmies, there's no company involved - "Yacapo & Dildamesh" are in all likelihood the online nicknames of two of its creators. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks, shows you what an expert I am. (Oh, so "game" means "map"!) Company or people, they didn't register on Google. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I propose that this article be redirected to the page for Cheryl Burke herself. Her small business does not meet notability requirements and reads like an advertisement.

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

The result was speedy delete. A7, author request, DGG (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Caldwell

Non-notable fictional character from likely non-notable fictional series. — neuro^(talk) 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with nom.--the play series itself seems local and nn, so the unsourced article on this character also is nn. JJL (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The play that is referenced is a local New York City production, but one that's getting a lot of press, and continued sold out shows. The future of this show is bright, both in the theatrical sense and beyond. And I will add sources to article as well.Wrongallday (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)wrongallday[reply]

Even so, how does this character in particular establish notability outside of the production? — neuro^(talk) 04:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I picked this character from the production because he had an interesting story that the writers happen to mix with real life characters, and he was the driving force in the story. Would it be more appropriate to establish the page as the entire production itself, which has run for over 12 months in NYC, and has a rapid fan base (that will hopefully go beyond the theatre production into possible planned film adaptations?)— Wrongallday^(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.252.97 (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can provide press coverage of that show, a general article on the show, including the set of characters and the respective actors might actually be of interest and constitute a notable article. De728631 (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment thanks for adding the reviews! I think you'd have a better chance at making a case for the notability of the show series itself (which might require more third-pary sources than are currently in it to establish its notability per Wikipedia standards). The current text could be merged there and this set to redirect to that page. JJL (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The character alone is not notable. De728631 (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added reviews, articles, and websites showing it's growing popularity and general interest in the show, helping to prove that it's a general notable article. If need be, the article can also be changed to be about the "Penny Dreadful" episodes itself, not just character Leslie Caldwell.Wrongallday (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)wrongallday[reply]

Note multiple vote. JJL (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, after reading all of this, that the article about the show should have been written first, so I agree. Delete the article I posted.. Wrongallday

done. DGG (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UMAUD Environment and Natural Resources studies

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UMAUD - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per previous discussion, also unnotable Lets drink Tea 00:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn; I don't see anything worth merging, but if so then merge anything of value and rd to University of Iceland. JJL (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Academic departments and similar teaching programs need to have particularly good evidence of notability, and this has none at all. My own concept of the level of notability needed is very close to "famous". As there is no one unit of the university to merge it into, it will need to go in the main article for the university. DGG (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that the above is the view I have been taking, and I believe the Accepted view. I am wondering--just wondering-- if it might not be more reasonable to actually permit & encourage pages on all departments of major universities at least--probably as combination articles. The information is as stable as most topics here, and the material is not without general interest, at least to those who think the academic world important. DGG (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would that do more than mirror the school's web site? What additional insight could WP add about Oberlin College's Political Science dept., for example? JJL (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge information as appropriate into two existing articles, University of Iceland and Brynhildur Davidsdottir. The second article has recently been created by the creator of this article, and this is the professor who is the director of this project. In general, special academic programs attract money and attention to the same extent the director(s) of the program can, and borrow from each other's notability, so it makes sense to me to be weighing notability for both in the same article. I'm also open to DGG's idea; if there's ever a separate article on the relevant department at this university, that would also be a logical target for a merge of some of the information. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to South Dennis, Massachusetts. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N. H. Wixon Middle School

Not a notable school, I do not find significant coverage of this in reliable sources, and I cannot find an article to merge this into. Enigma^msg 00:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with South Dennis, Massachusetts. twirligig_T to^the C 01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rd per above (unless a better target is found). JJL (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the School District/City page as the school has no evidence of notability. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 02:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per MathCool10; however, this stub's information can hardly be merged into the school district's article. -down load | sign! 02:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to South Dennis, Massachusetts per precedent. The school district of this school, Dennis-Yarmouth Regional School District, is a redlink so the geographical location of the school is the best target for a redirect. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per general precedent that high schools are notable enough for articles, anything lower is not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to South Dennis, Massachusetts per precedent. TerriersFan (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Zons. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War of pigs

Can't find any resources. Maniamin (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any sources either, and the German Wikipedia doesn't seem to have anything about it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There does appear to be a fountain in Zons commemorating the event, but searching for "Schweinefehde +Zons" doesn't turn up anything that looks like a reliable source. Perhaps merge something about this into the (currently empty) "History" section of the Zons article, treating it as a local legend? Deor (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Thanks, Deor: "Schweinefehde" is the keyword I was searching for. It means "Pig Feud", not "Pig War". Apparently it was in 1577. There's not enough material there for a separate article, though. Merge to Zons.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did write "a merry historical play" (ein lustig-historisches Spiel) about it in the 1930s. :-) Deor (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - If deleted, this should probably redirect to Pig War. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merger with the chief article on Zons may be the best way to go here. The sources found, while suboptimal, seem adequate to establish the existence of a monument to this historic conflict, the date, and the existence of a local legend. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 08:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Scott

Question of notability Maniamin (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Searches are complicated by other Emma Scotts, a garden designer and the managing director of Freesat; for this one I don't find much more than her own website and her radio station's website, not the substantial coverage by independent reliable sources that we look for. Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. JohnCD (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Besides failing notability as mentioned above, it also is completely unsourced. Valley2city^‽ 04:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Tassedethe (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty Nas Demo Tape

Prod contested on the grounds that the Wikipedia article is the only source that attests to the album's existence. That would make the article original research. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article does not qualify for speedy A9: there is an article on Nas. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NM and WP:V, non-notable demo and lacks reliable sources to inherit notability. DiverseMentality 04:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above -Drdisque (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established Jamestilley (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the good reasons given above. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it does (or did) exist, demos tend not to be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dijana Drasko Klancnik

Notability Maniamin (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO, can't find any news coverage, and only mention of her is advertising from her modeling agency. Nothing sets her apart from the thousands of other models in the world and makes her notable. FingersOnRoids 23:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oprah (MADtv sketch)

Unsourced trivia —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Uncited fancruft and original research. No evidence of notability. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:OR. JamesBurns (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources to establish notability. WillOakland (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there must be something good in this Huge pile of Ghits. Also see this giant pile of books. In particular, see [34] and [35]. I'll look for more. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the books, there isn't. WillOakland (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm, I searched again and could not find much. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research and fancruft for a sketch which has progressively become worse and unwatchable over the years. Nate • (chatter) 00:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there might be something to be said for including this in the Oprah article under media portrayals or something, but without reliable sourcing we can't even have that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The fact that the song was dedicated to Keith Relf has been merged to Birdland (album). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Original Man (A Song for Keith)

Stub with no chance at being a full article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to album, per WP:NSONGS. JohnCD (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Birdland (album). twirligig_T to^the C 01:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect - It's a song with notability on several grounds, but not enough for it's own article. It would be nice to know why it was dedicated to whom it was, but even that would not be enough to merit it's own article. Proxy User (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable non-charting song. JamesBurns (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. TheClashFan (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails notability WP:NSONGS. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Solidification / Stabilization (S/S) with Cement. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solidification and Stabilization

Article designed to look legit but serves only to promote a brand name product (ImmoCem). Another established article already exists for the main topic Solidification / Stabilization (S/S) with Cement. Links within the proposed afd go to the company website. Another article was created titled ImmoCem which directed users to Solidification and Stabilization. Both articles created and modified by same editor. Taroaldo (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Solidification / Stabilization (S/S) with Cement. Although from an article titling standpoint, I'd say that "Solidification and Stabilization" might be a better article title for the content from the redirect target. -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PURGE the commercial crap and shove everything that survives in Solidification / Stabilization (S/S) with Cement. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and rename per Whpq. twirligig_T to^the C 01:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A landmark is notable enough for inclusion, although this needs to be made more specific and clear on the article page seicer | talk | contribs 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Casimir's Church and Parish, Yonkers, NY

Delete nothing to distinguish this parish among the thousands of other churches or other religious houses worldwide. Fails WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a century-old church that's been described as a neighborhood landmark. I don't have time to research now, so I can't judge its notability yet. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is every "neighborhood landmark" notable? Some would contend that not every neighborhood is, much less its landmarks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree that not every neighborhood landmark is not notable, haven't determined the status of this one -- could be puffery, could be a significant landmark. Looks like it was pretty active around the 1940s, judging from a quick glance at the news results. Just wanted to establish a starting point for others. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - the one article listed above is not sufficient. I checked the National Register of Historic places database for NY, Yonkers [36], and found many historic registered buildings but this church is not one of them. -- Whpq (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The church's rectory, the John Copcutt Mansion at 239 Nepperhan Ave., is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This article says the mansion is historically and architecturally significant to the city of Yonkers. I'm not sure if the notability transfers to the church, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Amended to Keep based on the rectory being an historic building. -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this is deletionism gone mad. Ottre 10:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete Vague references to something being "historic" are meaningless. If the rectory is notable, we should have an article on it. I gather this is what the registry lists as "Copcutt,John,Mansion" ? if so, the reason for it being on the registry has no connection with the church .[37]. Glad of an opportunity to maintain my status among the rabid deletionists. DGG (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article needs to be updated to include mention of its rectory as being on the National Register of Historic Places, which would offer justification for its preservation here. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet Master: Axis of Evil

There is no proof that this film exists or will exist. I went to the official site of Full Moon Features, the listed production company, and found nothing. There is no entry on Allmovie or IMDb either. A Google search turned up mostly forums, one of which used Wikipedia as a source for this film. If there were something, I would leave it alone, but so far there is nothing even remotely like concrete to suggest this film's existence. LA (T) @ 19:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Finding no reliable source coverage or confirmation that filming has actually begun, hence fails WP:NFF. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. twirligig_T to^the C 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC):C[reply]
Speedy Rapid Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HOAX. Junk Police (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flirt (album)

WP:CRYSTAL, all speculation, it isn't known when or even if this will ever be released. Ejfetters (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NALBUMS, Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the {{future-album}} tag. This is currently established by the article. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You say confirmed release dates.. there is no confirmed release date. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, speculation yes, but LOTS of reliable sources - another Chinese Democracy? --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - This article should get the same fate as Her Name Is Nicole. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources check out, notable album Jamestilley (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has news coverage, has reviews, has notable producers and collaborators, and even has singles (one of which was a substantial hit). Even if this ultimately goes unreleased, it's still notable as a lost album. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should be deleted just as Her Name is Nicole was, argument is the same. That also had singles. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Artist

Non-notable, could not find reliable sources aside from two semi-reliable entries: 1 and 2 tedder (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. As a frequent editor among the Latter Day Saint articles, I agree that to the extent of my knowledge, the magazine is non-notable. Even within Latter Day Saint-oriented sources, there is scarcely a mention of it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Good Olfactory. twirligig_T to^the C 01:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above -Drdisque (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable subject. --Boston (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Olfactory. -Axmann8 (Talk) 09:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodoxy Beyond Limits

delete nn website V2e0 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam -- Whpq (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sincere spam, but spam indeed -- 7triton7 (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn website per WP:WEB. tedder (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Drdisque (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable subject. Hopefully the website will get coverage in Orthodox or other media and article can be recreated in the future. --Boston (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this is not a notable topic. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Cape Welding

delete nn company V2e0 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn -- samj _in ^out 19:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet Wikipedia:COMPANY#Primary criteria, although it has had coverage in a news article: 1, the coverage is not substantial, just a trivial note. And apart from that the only source for it is a primary source, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable.
Delete nn -Drdisque (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one mention in regional newspaper does not establish notability. --Boston (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--273 words doesn't quite cut it. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteCrane

Originally prod'd for not being notable or having any third party reliable sources. prod removed because Other stuff exists. 16x9 (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 16x9 (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - As the remover of the PROD, I noted in my summary "I don't see what makes this one less notable", which was a quick test in my mind as to notability. Obviously, this isn't the absolute, or even an indicative test, but it made me want some discussion around the deletion, if only to highlight other candidates for deletion. I do not feel particularly strongly either way, so have remained neural. Ian¹³ /t 22:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of CMS articles were recently nominated and at least a couple got deleted for lacking any sources whatsoever (with non found) I did find this but that won't help at all with writing a balanced neutral article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Ripoff report is unlikely to represent any sort of balanced reporting. I really can't find anything else about this CMS. -- 01:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability and WP:OTHERSTUFF -> WP:INN. tedder (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there any evidence as to how widely used this software package is? -Drdisque (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable subject. Even a speedy might be appropriate as there is not even a claim to notability here. --Boston (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, though unfortunately software can't be speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Spotify. MBisanz ^talk 08:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despotify

Fails to demonstrate notability through the inclusion of multiple non-trivial references by independent reliable sources. Has received the odd reference from Web media, mostly Swedish, but that's all; the project is only a few months old. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —94.196.100.87 (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd say it passes the notability test, but it lacks reliable sources at present. However, it seems to be fairly new, and I'd say within a couple months time, there will be more to go off of. Matt (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be notable, but reliable sources are still crucial. Without them, an article cannot be maintained. (As for the might be notable in the future argument, that is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. We don't deal in speculation unless it's done by noted experts and even then not all the time. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Completely un-notable aside from a way Linux users can run Spotify. Just because someone has hacked the source code of a program does not mean we should have an article on that hack. Unless it becomes something huge, or the Spotify article becomes too big, it makes sense to keep it within the Spotify article where it started. Jellypuzzle | ^Talk 08:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thay did not hack the sorce the despotify team revers engineered the protocol that spotify uses
and made their own program that uses the spotify protocol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.152.146 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spotify or Delete - redundant, unsourced information - in order to understand this article, you need to first read the spotify article -TinGrin 02:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Jellypuzzle and TinGrin. twirligig_T to^the C 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep, IF Spotify is notable, then my vote is "merge" or "keep" SF007 (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. I fully acknowledge that this organisation is notable but all the substantive content is a copyright violation from the two sources specified. Simply, we cannot tolerate copyright violations and there is no clean version to revert to. There is no problem in creating a new page without the copyright issues. TerriersFan (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Telecommunications Council

Moving from db-spam speedy deletion queue to AfD. db-inc not appropriate since it's not exactly a business or corporation (or person or website). Tone is a little brochure-like, but not terrible, and creator has offered to make it more neutral. $2.8M budget, founded in 1980. Needs sources. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly, if promised edits are made. Google news archives yield a number of independent sources amid routine press releases about hirings, layoffs, and speakers at conferences. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even more telling than the Google News results are the 491 Google Books and 563 Google Scholar hits that demonstrate how much this organisation's proceedings are considered important in its field. And I don't qualify my "keep" with "if promised edits are made". Notability is clear, so there is no deadline as to when the article should be improved, and, as we are all volunteers, the onus is on those who want changes in the article to make them. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio. The first half of the article is copied from here and the second half from here. Smile a While (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It needs work, but might only take 10 or 15 minutes to rewrite to be more coherent and remove any "copyright violation" issues. Proxy User (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Gau

Unreferenced stub. Appears to fail WP:BIO due to lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. There is an IMDB page but the roles mentioned in the article are not there which suggests they are not notable enough. —Snigbrook 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very very that IMDB doesn't have these under his name - they are, unlikely Wikipedia fairly indiscriminate, in my experience. Been tagged for notability since 2006, so we're not going to get anywhere with this. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only minor TV production credits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have done some expansion and sourcing to the stub. Am now looking to see if any of his works have won awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor roles only Jamestilley (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN "executive producer" of a series of minor TV specials. The New York Times listing is not a full article. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James A. King, Jr.

Not particularly notable USAFR officer. Not particularly senior (a colonel). One of thousands of officers of that rank serving in the US military. Recipient of an apparently obscure award from a body which doesn't even have its own WP article. Nothing makes him stand out. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The weak claim of notability rests on a single award, and hence the article fails WP:ONEEVENT. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. - Buckshot06

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wikipedia isn't a directory, nn award. tedder (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. twirligig_T to^the C 01:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No offense to Col King, but he just doesn't meet even a low notability threshold. Also, I suspect the author is the subject. Proxy User (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Choi

He doesn't seem to be notable physican.Who may require a article.Wp:Notable User:Yousaf465 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've asked the nom to expand their statement. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment "His awards include an American Medical Association Foundation National Leadership Award (2001) and the Foundation for PM&R New Investigator Award (2004)" according to MSMS website Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I just restored some content that an IP had removed on 10 March. Apparently the subject is author of a handbook--that may change things (I was about to go delete here). I don't know if it makes a difference, but still. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—StaticVision (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete unless it can be shown that the pocket handbook is a major resource. It's not in many libraries, but that isn't the least unusual for such books, which are meant for the individual physician, and not indicative [38]
Comment -- Amazon lists several medical books by a Dr Howard Choi. Anyone know if they are all by the the same guy? That handbook is 134 long. From the article I imagined it was about a tenth that size. Geo Swan (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added the AMA Award (and the other one) to his bio. However, the Leadership award is something distinct from their more notable AMA Scientific Achievement Award -- this one is awarded to students and the like, as explained here. So unfortunately it doesn't look like it alone satisfies the second criteria of WP:ACADEMIC, "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." It'll have to be decided by the notability of his publications. --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, also fails WP:PROF. Some of the above comments appear to be ambivalent more or less due to the number of ghits Choi generates. In reality, while Choi clearly is a prolific producer of papers, manuals and the like he has virtually no genuine, reliable, third party coverage. There is nothing that I can find which would suggest that any of his output to date is sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. AngoraFish 木 12:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Awards and being author of popular handbook makes him notable. LK (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, awards do not make someone notable, per Wikipedia:PROF, only "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." nb the national leadership award is awarded to "20 students, 20 residents and fellows and 15 young physicians" each year. Similarly the Foundation for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation is a relatively obscure foundation and award is a $10,000 grant. Most active biomedical researchers receive several such "awards" each year, usually for much larger amounts. Also, being author of an alleged "popular" handbook (how popular are you arguing it is, by the way?" I ask since the searches above are struggling to find it) would also not appear to be sufficient to comply with "academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institution". Handbooks are insanely common, they tend to summarize current thought rather than create new thought, and are thoroughly ephemeral unless you can provide sources that state otherwise. AngoraFish 木 21:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to repeat that this handbook is 134 pages long. That is book-length, IMO. Geo Swan (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just being a published author is not sufficient to establish notability, per WP:AUTHOR. The number of pages in a published work is irrelevant. AngoraFish 木 06:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have that beat with my thesis, which was 149 pages long, but the page length of "published works" is irrelevant. It is their impact that is important for establishing notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to have authored any important reviews in his subject, or made any strikingly novel and widely-important findings that were reported by secondary sources. Seems a highly competent and promising young scientist, but not an established leader in his field. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The American Medical Association awards are quite notable. I don't care how many people get the award each year, is a rather small amount compared to the number of people involved in the American medical field, and you have had to have done something notable by their standards to receive it. And if this other foundation is giving out a $10,000 award, then he must've done something worth getting noticed. An award from an unknown is meaningless, but not if it includes a check for ten thousand dollars! This isn't some guy deciding to print out certificates on his home computer and hand them out to people, obviously. Dream Focus 20:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The handbook is , just barely, enough for notability. DGG (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scatter Brothers Productions

The only possible point of notability is that this group of producers (which became the company listed), supposedly submitted a film to the Film Your Issue film contest and won (which means it's also shown at Sundance). I tried to verify the claim myself and can't (see these links:[39][40]). I also looked for evidence that the short played at Sundance and can only find self published statements that verify that claim (see these links:[41][42]). If it is true, I could see the President (Ben Daniele) being notable possibly but not a production company started after the face. As for the general notability litmus test, I found no news articles about the company as you can see here. I don't see that this company satisfies WP:CORP or that the group members would collectively meet WP:CREATIVE. They may be notable in the future but just not now.OlYeller^Talktome 12:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Maybe someday for these guys, but that day is not today. Keep workin' on it, and come back later. Proxy User (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP in a big way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Figures

Sufficient mention of these products is made at World Wrestling Entertainment. Doesn't merit a separate page. Taroaldo (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect While this should definitely mentioned in context, the coverage in the main article is not sufficient as claimed by the nominator. The separate article mentions additional information like years and other companies that had or will have the contract to produce these figures. Deleting the page would result in loss of information. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? The figure line that put JAKKS Pacific on the map? The toy line that was the subject of an infamous lawsuit about how JAKKS Pacific acquired the rights and collusion between WWE licensors? One of the most successful boys toys lines in the last decade? Strong keep. This subject has featured article potential. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources with potential: this, this, this, this if we're calling Motley Fool a reliable source, and any of the toy industry journals (which I only ever had access to by nosing my employer's collection in a former job). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to new #Merchandise section of World Wrestling Entertainment. -Drdisque (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable toy line which even had a notable technological innovation (though it isn't mentioned in the article) by using 3D body scans of the wrestlers themselves to produce extremely accurate likenesses. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind with a hope that the article will undergo a major expansion and revision. youngamerican (wtf?) 15:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Transfers for Torneo Apertura Chileno 2007

Seems like a rather clear-cut WP:NOTDIR violation. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many such lists exist, I guess, but that's not to say they should. I for one am concerned about the total lack of references. Punkmorten (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#STATS, wikipedia isn't a sports alamac. Secret ^account 14:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is precedent for this kind of list, see List of Italian football transfers Summer 2007, List of English football transfers summer 2007, List of transfers of La Liga - 2007–08 season. Deleting this one while the articles for the European leagues are kept would seem a little unfair, although I believe that these articles should be properly sourced and this isn't. King of the North East 02:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as KOTNE correctly points out, league transfer articles are considered acceptable, and therefore the article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 01:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KOTNE and GS. – Pee Jay 02:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Library and Information History Group

No evidence whatsoever of the notability of this group. Claims, yes. Evidence, no. StarM 01:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 01:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 01:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 01:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of groups might be appropriate on the page for the main organization, but this is excessive detail--even within my own profession. I am not recommending a merge, because the name is too nonspecific to be a useful redirect. DGG (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an ad. No organic content jbolden1517 ^Talk 05:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam, complete with instructions on how to join their maiing list (!!!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Societa Italiana di Benevolenza Principe di Piemonte

Speedy A7 was declined on the basis of one source provided, but the declining admin implicitly expressed doubts that this article would survive an AfD. This is about an organization that represents ethnic Italians in a neighborhood of Thunder Bay, Ontario. There is no assertion of notability in the article except for the vague mention in one source. Google returns only ten hits, none of which are useable as a reference to establish notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for reference improvements. This Google Book search seems to point the way to some sources that could be used to establish notability of the organisation. The full text is not available online. -- Whpq (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2009

(UTC)

This or The DaVinci Centre should be included. This facility is a long standing cultural organization in the city of Thunder Bay, similar to The Hoito.

Its a community cultural facility, run by volunteers, not a business per se...

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable small organization. -Drdisque (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 08:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Ballot Access

Very little real content, with almost all of its links linking to Ballotpedia. Many 'references' but almost none of them actually reference the named company. (I didn't check them all). The only user to have added any content is User:Johnwynnejr, who has zero other contributions. The company also only gets 1390 Google hits. The president and co-president links used to be wikilinks to articles that were speedied. Evan ¤ Seeds 05:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more paragraph type content. I've delete the ballotpedia tags. This is my fist time on Wikipedia. I have many more articles to add relating to the citizens' initiative process, although unrelated to National Ballot Access. Alot of the references don't include National Ballot Access because I just wanted this page to be well referenced. I included lots of references about the petition drives, even if they did not mention the petition drive management company. Please let me keep this page. I can improve it to meet the standards.

User:Johnwynnejr 09:00am, 6 March 2009

Speedy delete G11 - user can start again if they like Chzz ► 15:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not so sure about advertising. For example, as it stands now, out of the 3 references for the president and co-president (an odd titling choice, I would expect pres and vice or two co-pres, but...) two of them paint NBA in a negative light. However, while the article itself certainly needs clean-up, what I'm really concerned about is notability. The article as far as I can tell does not really assert any claim of notability, as being a 'petition drive management company' is certainly not inherently notable. I know numbers aren't everything, but it gets 0 google news hit, and 76 google blog search hits, many of which are generic terms (Bob Foobar, national ballot access coordinator for Minor McCandidate's campaign), etc. --Evan ¤ Seeds 16:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put those references together on a whim. All I need is some more time to find more references that show notability. 7:00pm 6 March 2009 User:Johnwynnejr
I also added 3 external resources to add notability. Johnwynnejr (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just deleted and added new references for Colorado CRI, the Nebraska CRI and the Andy Dillon recall. The 2 new references for each show notability for National Ballot Access.Johnwynnejr (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also added these articles so far:

I'm just new and have much more to add.Johnwynnejr (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that this John Wynne Jr is the same one who is the "Petitioner / Sub-Coordinator" at National Ballot Access as per http://www.linkedin.com/pub/10/9a9/914 I have placed a WP:COI tag in his talk page.--Cerejota (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is me. I never hide my identity. Also, I have added more negative references and external resources for NBA than positive. I am going along with Wikipedia's aim for a neutral article. Thank you--Johnwynnejr (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also just contributed:

Johnwynnejr (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a lot of real content with more meat to the petition categories. Johnwynnejr (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is difficult to see what the relationship is between the lede and the rest of the article. As for the sources, 2 does not have the subject named in it, 3 has two passing mentions, 4 does but it's just a blog, 6 has nothing, 7 is what?, 8 nothing... That's enough for me. The references do not help establish that the subject is notable, and the article doesn't even establish what it is. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice well taken:
- All references now contain info regaurding National Ballot Access, except references #6,7,8.
- The opening paragraph explains the importance and responsibilities of a petition drive management company.

ThanksJohnwynnejr (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please list 3 or more references in National Ballot Access, which are neutral, reliable sources that are independent of the subject and are exclusively about this company. Press releases or one-sentence mentions do not suffice. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I added 3 external resources to the actual page already. They are more of resources though. Arno Political Consultants is another petition drive management company in the same boat. I guarantee any references they have are not neutral.

Johnwynnejr (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't say I have a strong feeling that it's an advert (though that seems like the only real possible purpose of wanting the Wiki page - Wiki page = higher Google Page Rank), but I can't see the notability of it either. Proxy User (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Drmies, and evaluation of the claimed sources in particular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another company I work for from time to time(Arno Political Consultants) has their own page. No one puhed to delete that. Even the owner (Mike Arno) has his own page. That is no more notable that NBA. Johnwynnejr (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That Arno article is short and needs an overhaul, but it's not bad--at the very least it has four apparently independent sources that establish that the company is notable. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article is so full of puffery that it is difficult to distinguish between which sources are relevant and which are not. Of the 14 sources, in the article 12 are either behind a paywall, contain only passing mentions of this company, or don't even mention it at all. This news source from the Daily Nebraskan contains significant coverage about this company, while this source from Progressive States Network has a paragraph about this company. This source contains some information about some concerns with National Ballot Access. IMO, these sources are enough for National Ballot Access to barely pass WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am working off the research of Cunard here, but I don't think these references are enough for a keep. There may be RS that have mentioned the topic, but that doesn't make it notable by itself. The mention in the WP:RS has to provide enough evidence that the topic is notable, and I'm not sure it does that. While the Daily Nebraskan article may have substantial coverage, that's not enough for a keep because it doesn't demonstrate its notability, only that it has been mentioned. The RS guideline, of course, works in conjunction with WP:notability. Shadowjams (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Come on guys, what do you say we let it ride..Johnwynnejr (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celestine Kapsner

Delete not notable, poorly written, one self published reference Nefariousski (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a notable figure and this information is of interest for people who are students of the topic. Dwain (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What information? There are a few sentances that more or less only discuss that he published a pamphlet and said pamphlet is the only source for the article. Where's the value added or notability? If he's a notable figure let's see more than a single credible source on the page. I can pull more and better sources for a Wikipedia article about myself just by doing a simple google search and by no measure do I qualify to have my own article. One pamphlet sourced from one webpage does not a good article make. --Nefariousski (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. He is not notable - searching ProQuest and Ebsco turned up zero articles for this person. Poorly written is not criteria for deletion. twirligig_T to^the C 01:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might point out there are very few mentions of exorcism in the current edition of the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. Just because nobody is interested in the field these days, does not make him any less notable during the 1970s. Ottre 09:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a letter to the editors of TIME magazine, Google Books has some hits (skip past the first page), he's mentioned in a book on St. John's Abbey, he gets mentioned in a footnote in a book on Erasmus (though only as translator) and likewise in a creepy book. OK, I've searched every single database I have access to and come up empty-handed. Maybe someone else will have more luck--I'm going to postpone the inevitable for now. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Time Magazine information. The article is very interesting Dwain (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Like many Wiki articles, needs a lot of work. BUT, Kapsner is indeed a noted exorcist. Proxy User (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I don't see what the problem is. He is responsible for bringing exorcism to a wider audience with his publication. The next big story that reached a wide audience was the one that inspired the movie The Exorcist. It's an obvious keep. Puca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Very weak delete The Google Books refs above don't show much except that he translated that pamphlet. What else did he do that would show notability? OTOH, if the translation was more influential than the original, that would tend to show notability here... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 23:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Health Freedom

There are ample mentions of this institute in reliable sources in addition to those listed, but they seem all to treat it in context of the notability of Sue Blevins, its founder. I did find a few mentions with more context and direct relation considering the institute itself, but only in self-published or unreliable (World Net Daily, Medical News Today) sources that cannot be used to establish notability. As it lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, this organization does not seem notable. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only began that article less than a month ago, on 8th February. Is it reasonable to nominate an article for deletion before its author even gets a chance to develop it properly? Also, I note that your proposed grounds for deletion do not cite any specific Wikipedia policies or guidelines to support your reasoning. More to the point, all of the article's references easily meet the bar for WP:RS. As such, I contend that your claimed grounds for deletion are spurious and one-sided at best. It would be a sad day if all Wikipedia articles with references like these are to be deleted before they even get a chance to get off the ground.Vitaminman (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are better sources (i.e. deal with the institute itself more than in passing) than the ones I found and describe above, please add them. Alternatively, there is nothing wrong with working on an article in your userspace (e.g. at User:Vitaminman/draft) until you are ready to take it live. The relevant guideline, which I link above, is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). - Eldereft (cont.) 22:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what to make of this, to be frank.

Sue Blevins needs an article, if she's notable (which the nominator agrees she is). In which case, Institute for Health Freedom should either have an article of its own if it's notable in its own right, or else it should redirect to Sue Blevins if it isn't. The Sue Blevins article could quite appropriately have a section on the Institute for Health Freedom.

So overall I'm going to go with Redirect.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be hundreds of news sources and books which mention this lobby group in some way. Sue Blevins seems to be their principal speaker and so the two tend to appear together but with the Institute predominating. BLP concerns should make us prefer an article upon the organisation rather than the person. And, in any case, it's just a matter of getting the right title, which is not achieved by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I can quite see the issue over the interlinking between the Institute and Blevins. However, reading the sources, it is the body behind it, not the spokesperson, that gives the views of the Institute significance. It seems clear to me that the Institutes' views carry weight as shown by the broad range of RSs that quote it. Smile a While (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zillions of mentions don't necessarily equate to notability. Any active "think tank" will have lots of position papers out there. But are any of them notable for any particular reason? I don't think so. Proxy User (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sue Blevins: this organization hasn't made the headlines at all this year. Ottre 08:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Merge as above, else delete. I'm seeing mentions, I'm not seeing anything in-depth that one could use to build an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; as per my comments above. Vitaminman (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; (obvious) easily meets the threshold for inclusion in the category of advocacy groups. Their non-profit budget is significant http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=1365 patsw (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Creek, Houston / Humble

Doesn't even exist yet. Maniamin (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not existing yet is in itself not a problem if the planning is well covered. But there are no independent sources to be had. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party sources (the only source is the website of this planned community, which makes me think it's spammy), no indications of notability. TJ Spyke 02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn proposed real estate development -Drdisque (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of independent sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 08:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Rola

Fails WP:BIO. An independent film maker with non notable films. I don't come up with any news coverage for him and his films, and the only source on the page seems to be a webpage created by the person. Also, the independent film festival that his films are showed at has a reputation for accepting every entry that is submitted. There are no mentions of the movies elsewhere. FingersOnRoids 23:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom -Drdisque (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. One film, and no evidence of either commercial success or critical recognition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pussycat Dolls: Greatest Hits}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris_Woollams}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Program Authority}}