Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 17: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:22, 17 March 2009

< 16 March	18 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student Prank

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Islands national football team

This team has never competed at any level. The address given for their FA on the rsssf link is with their National Olympic Committee. The website for their Olympic committee has a list of federations and that isn't one of them. Olympic committe site Stu.W UK (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page:

as there is also no evidence for this existence of this team. The rsssf weblink supplied offers a link to the tokelau FA that results in a blank page. The fedefutbol site, which is run by one person, supplies an address C/O Office for Tokelau Affairs in Samoa which seems rather unconvincing. Regardless, both these pages are lacking any evidence that these teams have ever played Stu.W UK (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Looks like a different type of fantasy football at work here. The idea of a "Tokelau national football team" is moronic, given that Tokelau has less than 1,500 people. A Marshall Islands team appears to be wishful thinking, with no evidence that there is one-- with a per capita income of $2,900 a year, I imagine that they have higher priorities than a national sports team. Mandsford (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just thought I would point out that Burundi has a national soccer/"football" team even though they have a per capita income of just $371 per year. TJ Spyke 21:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both neither country is affiliated to FIFA. I would say that the Marshall Islands sent four athletes to the Olympic Games in Beijing, and there are several countries with lower GDP per head with national football teams. Parslad (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be associated with FIFA to have a national football team. It just makes it harder, not impossible, to play international games. The lack of proof there is one is more convincing. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. Giant Snowman 10:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, no evidence either actually exists -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newshouse

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Stub article; there appears to be one RS to somewhat establish notability. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Navneet Group's market cap. This seems to be one of their main publications, and it is a demonstrably (top 300?) notable company. Ottre 18:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Weal keep Indian Express story is substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:04, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only 20,000 issues in a city of 14 million. Non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:36, 26 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) 08:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Robson

Originally a copyvio. Offending content removed, but as far as I can tell this is still an NN author, no sources, google turns up no related information about this person (seems there is a game designer who is possibly notable named Johan Robson, but nothing for the author.) -Senseless!... says you, says me 17:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've had a bit of a hunt-around for some of the books listed here and the author himself on Google, and can't find anything. I'd suggest that either this fails WP:HOAX or is correct and the author is indeed a recluse, in which case it fails WP:VERIFY. Colds7ream (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, it's a copyvio from http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,2804/ Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read 'Alone' and few of the 'Drake' books. His work is mostly, as the article says, underground publishing. He's a kind of crazy writer.. some of it really mad stuff. There's a ref. to one of his collections of poetry 'Bewleys and Other Poems' somewhere on the net but it's out of print. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott D Williams (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Riemenschneider, the author of this article. I do understand that there is not much about Johan K Robson available on the internet and that is why I have placed this information on Wikipedia. There is a book by J.K. Robson to be found on Amazon: http://www.amazon.ca/Alone-Dark-Official-Strategy-Guide/dp/1559586044. This is not to be cofused with his novel 'Alone'. I would like to point out that Robson is not 'a crazy writer' as D Williams would have us believe but a serious underworld author making some rather pertenent commentary on social and political injustices, albeit in an often humorous and unconventional manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich Riemenschneider (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is not a single hit for this person on Google News, and for an author that is a kind of a lithmus test. I might add that the article is entirely unclear and one has to dig through it to find out what this person actually is notable for. It needs structure, organization into paragraphs, and a lede. That, of course, is not the reason for deletion--the subject's non-notability is. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Robson's writings are weird - VERY WEIRD. I got a copy of his CAPS OFF and if that's not crazy nothing is! It's about this guy in a line of soldiers (I think!!) at some kind of ceremony or other. The story starts with the word 'Caps... and then there's another 135 pages of really, really weird stuff and I'm talking 'crazy' weirdo, off-the-bleenin'-wall weird stuff and the "novel" (if that's what you can call it) eventually ends with ...off!" So the whole story I guess takes place within the time it takes whoever it is who's speaking to say CAPS OFF! Don't ask me what it's all about. I haven't a clue. I don't think Robson himself knows either if you ask me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Morris-Taylor (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riemenschneider: Fine. Delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich Riemenschneider (talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was browsing the web and I came across this article about Johan Robson. So I thought I'd create an account so I could join in the discussion. This sort of thing is all new to me but I thought I might write to say that I'm acquainted with the quaint mystery tales called 'Drake' by J.K.Robson. I read them a long time ago but from what I recall they were all rather charming 'tales of the unexpected'. Robson's style seems to be more interested in creating atmosphere rather than telling a good yarn that has a beginning, a middle and an end. I have to say I didn't know about his other work and I was very interested to read that he has been also involved in writing video games too. I've played KGB on occasions myself and I never realized that it was written by the same chap who wrote the Drake tales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardus-Brett (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how many of these new SPAs we have, who all talk about the topic in similar terms, all forget to sign their name, all write in the same style, without even stating keep or delete. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete Notability was not found --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does one sign one's name? I'm new to all this. And what is a SPA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardus-Brett (talk • contribs) 07:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riemenschneider: I have posted this information on other sites. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich Riemenschneider (talk • contribs) 07:30, March 19, 2009

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Anthony.bradbury. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yogiraj Sri Swami Satchidananda

extremely promotional, article doesn't even say what the subject actually does Jac16888 ^Talk 17:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Tagged A7, possibly G11 as well. Apparently no direct relation to Swami Satchidananda, except that he has translated some of his speeches into English, no sources or other material showing that Yogiraj satisfies WP:N or WP:V. -Senseless!... says you, says me 17:41, 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. Meets WP:PROF as pointed out. Most references are valid. Obviously, non-US/UK actors will not obtain same level of notoriety, but that does not make them notable. Arguments for Keep are far stronger than those for delete. (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florentina Mosora

Fails both WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:PROF, the fields for which notability is claimed for her. There is no evidence she was a "movie star" (of the three roles listed for her at IMDb, the highest billing she received was third), and in any case, the sources relied upon to make these claims are self-published and violate WP:RS. There is also no evidence her scientific work has had a significant impact, or that she meets any other of the necessary criteria. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not an overwhelming case of notability to be sure. But when the movie career is combined with the history of leaving Romania (I believe it was) to pursue a career, the academic achievements, and the documentary and coverage of the this individual's career choices and the sacrifices involved, I think there is enough notability. There is a strong indication of additional sources being available in other languages. The article does need some clean-up, but seems well worth keeping according to guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without addressing the other points in depth (except to say that the film career was not much, and that many people emigrated from Romania, with some ending up in universities), let me just note that the documentary is at a self-published site violating WP:SELFPUB & WP:RS. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides being a poorly written article, it's an interesting story--and the lady seems notable enough to me, more as a scholar than as anything else, I reckon: here's Google Books and here's Google Scholar. Like Child said, it may not be overwhelming, but it's there. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~KeepNeutral~~ ~~If the claim that she was a member of the Belgian Academy can be sourced, that would mean that she passes WP:ACADEMIC #3.~~ Changing my vote to neutral for the moment: given the discussion on the talk page of the article it is highly doubtful that she was a member of the Belgian Academy of Sciences. If no better evidnece turns up her, I'll go to delete. The article is currently rather horrible and needs major cleanup and pruning. --Crusio (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Web of Science lists 54 publications (a bunch of them are only abstracts, though) that have been cited 819 times in total, h-index of 17. The most cited article has 86 hits, but Mosora is only a minor author in that paper. Among the 17 highest cited papers, there is not a single one on which she's last author. I assume that the word "académicienne" in the article simply is the female form of "academic" and that she was not a member of any national Academy of sciences (the link given in the article was to the Flemish Academy of Sciences, being French-speaking, I would not expect her to be a member of that Academy anyway). Taken together, this means to me that she does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. However, she also appeared in 4 Romanian movies (I don't think there is much doubt that the actress is the same person as the scientist) and that is indeed an unusual combination. The movies don't seem to be very notable themselves, so I don't think Mosora would pass notability as an actress. However, perhaps an argument can be made that borderline notability as an actress combined with borderline notability as an academic amounts to notability per WP:BIO. --Crusio (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Subject fails notability criteria for the relevant areas by much, and the only claims to some notability to be deduced from the article are highly dubious. The arguments presented here in support of keeping the article are two, both of them faulty: 1) so you find the article interesting. Supposing it is, that is still irrelevant. Relevantly, the only info that would make the article "interesting", and, in fact, the only source to go into any detail about her life is a personal, promotional and atrociously edited webpage (i.e. linkspam, which promotes not just Mosora, but also itself); 2) Florentina Mosora's name is mentioned by google books etc. And? did you check the context for that? Because it appears to me that the only thing they proclaim is her being the author or co-author of articles which are used as bibliography by niche works. So far, the only source to go into any detail about her supposed significance is the aforementioned linkspam. Dahn (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is a combination of factors that serve as a basis for my weak keep recommendation: (a) the searches by Drmies; note that the Google Scholar search shows an article published in Science, although the subject is the second author on that one; (b) the subject has at least one edited book, Biomechanical transport processes, currently in more than 120 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat; and (c) the book in question seems to be a compilation of a NATO workshop, and the subject is the only editor and apparently the main organizer of the workshop. On the other hand, this is not a clear cut keep because: (a) some of the claims in the article fail WP:V; and (b) while the life story is interesting, there is practically no independent media coverage of it.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Science article has never been cited, not even once... So it obviously has had no measurable impact on the field. 120 libraries for a subject like that is not huge (and as far as I have been able to find out, she's for certain only a co-editor of this book and unlikely to have been the organizer of the workshop; Worldcat lists her as only author, Springer lists only Baque as an editor...) --Crusio (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, see below, I've meanwhile changed my stance to "weak keep". However, I mistrust Google Scholar. I have articles of my own in there that shown huge citation counts whereas I know for a fact that they have never been cited even once. Web of Science does not give even a single citation, so even if Google picks up some that WoS misses, many of the Google citations must be miscounts or doubles. As for the editorship, I'm not convinced. Why would the publisher itself be so wrong about this? That Amazon and other book sellers might get it wrong, I can see (although, they all list more than one editor and Mosora not as the first one). Someone should look the book up in a library and see what really is going on... --Crusio (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Science article shows over 60 citations on Google Scholar. This Library of Congress entry shows her as the first editor of the book.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She did not write even a single book in her lifetime (she is the co-editor of just one book, and the co-author of a few articles). She was not a member of the Belgian Academy of Sciences as it was alleged. So she is not notable as a scholar, I guess. As an actress: she acted in three movies. But then again, if we added all the actors who acted in three movies, Wikipedia would be awash with articles on actors.--Mycomp (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course, if she had played for just 1 minute in an American football game, she'd be notable, but the fact that the jocks can't get their act together doesn't mean that we should do the same. --Crusio (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment As for "she did not write even a single book in her lifetime", that would indeed be highly unusual if she had been working in the humanities. However, writing a book is much less common in the sciences and most academics working in biology, physics, and such never write (or even edit) a book, so that is not really a negative point. According to this (bottom of page), she was one of three co-organisers of the NATO workshop, which is nothing to spit at. It is not entirely clear who edited the resulting book, though. Some sources mention only Mosora as editor, but the Springer website (now linked to in the article) lists the peple indicated in the article as editors. However.... If you go to the Springer page and click the book title, you get to a page specifically for the book and then you don't see Mosora at al... Looks like somebody will have to go to the library to check this. However, the fact that she was one of three chairpersons for this NATO meeting sways me to change from neutral to weak keep.--Crusio (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crusio, I don't think anyone here is discussing their feelings about the notability of American football players (in fact, at least two people commenting on this page have repeatedly called for those notability standards to be revised - plus, it seems that all of us who have so far voted "delete" are Romanian, just like Mosora and unlike the vast majority of American football fans). The point I was making (which echoes those made by others who voted the same way) is that this person has no real claim to notability, and that authoring articles, chairing a meeting etc. do not supplant this, nor the fact that the only source who goes into any non-directory sort of detail about her life is a spamlink. Let me ask you these: is any review of her work (in science or cinema) available? is there any biographical detail from a reliable source available? once you remove all the dubious, self-promotional material from the article, and add instead the various patches mentioning her in various places, is there any chance we'll have something remotely resembling an encyclopedic article on a notable person? I think the answer to all three is "no". Dahn (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my "football" remark irritated you, you are right that it does not belong here and I should vent my frustration with those notability guidelines elsewhere :-) As for Mosora, there are sources. For instance, there are websites listing the book she edited. Web of Science records the almost 900 scientific articles that make reference to her work. There must be sources about her movies (given the time those were made, those are unlikely to be online but rather in print). As they are likely to be in Romanian, you could perhaps be helpful in locating those. Wikipedia has no prejudice against sources in foreign languages or in print. We also have a reliable independent source that she co-chaired an important meeting (for these meetings, "chair" means "organizer", not just presiding a session or something trivial like that). To me all this adds up to passing the notability guidelines, albeit barely (hence the "weak" in my keep !vote). --Crusio (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abrupt mentions in the various papers, mentions which appear to be mainly bibliographic, don't automatically validate either significance to the field or notability, and they do not compensate for sourcing in a bio article. What they say is that she exists and is a researcher, both of which no one doubts. On that level, basically every person who has a career in research will inflate in notability, since they are all required to publish (as authors or co-authors) a number of works and those works are likely to be cited. And the number of people who edited one book... Her career in cinema seems of even less interest. For one, I object to arguments based on the likelihood of something being attested, as opposed to verifying whether it is in fact attested. Google books produces one result for this aspect - what appears to be a passing mention in a listing of Romanian films produced between 1949 and 1975 (Cinematograful românesc contemporan, 1949-1975). Dahn (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that the fact that she published makes her notable. As I mentioned above, the Science paper that she co-authored was not cited even once, so despite this being one of the most prestigious journals, that does not make her notable. You are correct that publishing and some citations to those publications do not make someone notable. It is the amount of those citations that indicates that her works mad an impact on the field. As for sources on her movies, I would have been surprised if a Google search would have rendered anything significant. What I contest is that this is the only valid criterium. What is the likelihood that movies produced in the late 50s/early 60s have significant coverage on the Internet? You will need to search for printed sources. As the world was much less interconnected in that period (especially given the political divisions of the time), I would expect those sources to be in Rumanian print publications. In fact, I'd be surprised if none of those four movies had ever been reviewed in a Rumanian newspaper of the time. Whereas it is perfectly reasonable to look for online sources for people living nowadays, this is not necessarily reasonable for things that happened 50 years ago. --Crusio (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understood you, and what I said is that the number of casual citations of her name in the bibliography of various works does not validate a claim that she had an impact in her field of research - just that she wrote about a subject with some popularity. I have also said that those mentions could never replace what is actually needed in a bio article, unless we we're okay with the notion that articles work as bibliographic lists. The google search for her films was actually on google books, which, I do believe, is a good reflection of coverage in literature (it did yield the title I mentioned, which is as obscure as it gets). Her theoretical coverage in Romanian film magazines from the period is the sound of a falling tree. For one, there was only one such magazine in Romania (it was called Cinema, and it alternated communist propaganda with trivia; anyone familiar with the type of coverage films got in a film industry where everything was state-owned and centralized would make most such presumed coverage pieces hot potatoes); the most mention she has received since is this type of article, where she is mentioned twice for being beautiful - the focus is her partner Iurie Darie, who, as a virtual star of the industry in the 50s and 60s, is admittedly much more notable than her. As you can see, there is coverage of other actors from the period, and if I were to write an article on Darie, I would have no trouble sourcing it - cf. Victor Rebengiuc, to name just one article from the 60s on whom we already have an article. Dahn (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as both an academic and as an actress. A sufficient number of citations to scientific or academic work in peer reviewed books or journals meets WP:PROF, because it shows that a person is an authority in the field. This is exactly how one becomes recogized as an authority. (The need for a special rule. WP:PROF, is because otherwise citation counts of two could be taken as meeting the GNG, which makes no sense. Before this was clarified, it was necessary to argue each time that such a trivial count was not in substance significant, and higher counts were.) How many is sufficient is determined by comparison with others, and by judgement here. Using Crusio's citation count, this is clearly sufficient in this subject. I note that at least two of her articles were published in first rate journals, Science, and Diabetes, the physiological journal with the highest impact factor. But as an actress, or entertainer, one is judged by the standards oft he field of entertainment. If she was prominent in her national film industry had a leading role in multiple films, she's notable. Some day google books may possibly get to cover material published in postwar central europe in an exhaustive way, but it won't be soon. The significance of such material not being in G Books presently, is zero. DGG (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't begin to count the ways in which the above arguments are faulty and misinterpret or glance over the points made on this page while claiming to address them. One becomes recognized as an authority provided the source who cite you say something about your work - whereas here the only thing proven is that articles she co-wrote are simply mentioned as generic bibliographic references. As I have asked a couple of times by now: who could ever claim that an article can be written from such mentions, given that these are the only mentions she gets in reliable sources? The rest of the claims, including all those on her academic positions, relate to a non-reliable source, or are simply uncited (copypasting the whole sentence might have led you to the yet unaddressed "citneeded" tag). I have brought up google books to show that there is coverage of even an obscure subject as this there, and, no, it doesn't point to anything significant about Mosora's career. I happen to have edited tens of articles on Romanian subjects, Romanian actors and scientists included, many of them from scratch, and in the process found google books a thorough database for "postwar Central Europe" (the only thing limited in this respect being availability of individual texts, not the overall coverage of this area). No, she did not have "leading roles in multiple films", she was (as pointed out a number of times by now) a secondary character in four films - none of which is particularly notable. Theories about how "she may have coverage", which conveniently glance over the fact that three native speakers of Romanian found no such coverage, are wishful thinking, and conveniently ignore the fact that evidencing a claim relies on the person who makes it, not on those who dispute it. Dahn (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG.Nrswanson (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's excellent analysis.Broadweighbabe (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is perhaps not the place for this, but I need some help with this article. The article's creator User:Bci2 keeps inserting unsourced and plainly wrong information into the article. I have reverted already twice today and won't do that again. I have commented on the user's talk page, but to no avail. In addition, it seems to me that the copyright information given by this editor for the portrait on the article is erroneous. Some help here would be appreciated. --Crusio (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean, going through the history. I can't go through and undo two dozen changes, but I did remove the one "Oceanography" statement and its three "sources," and have explained why in the edit summary and on the author's talkpage. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm inclined to think that the subject of a half-hour documentary (inaccessible and in Romanian as it may be) and with as unusual a combination of activities as hers should be at least marginally notable. But there's a serious problem with verifiability, her film career is obscure, and it seems clear she doesn't pass WP:PROF (unless the Belgian academy claim can be resurrected with reliable sources). And even what little we can read about this documentary mentions mysterious gaps in our knowledge of her life, and is verifiably inaccurate (it calls her the author of a book she merely edited). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Reading the article creator's reply to you, Crusio, on his/her talk page ("...actual facts that I know first hand, and you obviously **do not**, and..."), makes me wonder whether he/she knows that according to Wikipedia, reliable sources are secondary sources not primary ones. Saying "I know it for sure because I knew her" f. ex., is not good enough.--Mycomp (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Particularly since it seems to indicate WP:COI. I also note this post, also on that talk page:

"Please also note that the main proposer for the deletion seems to be "politically motivated", and also initiated by someone who'd apparently like to turn the clock of Romanian history to the time period before 1989, by erasing pieces of history such as Florentina Ioana Mosora's biography simply because she emigrated to Belgium before 1989... thus signalling indirectly her discontent with the dictatorial govt. before '89. If she was not as succesful as she was in Belgium, and contributing much more than she ever could have at home, she "might have been forgiven" by the deletion petitioners, but as it is, she is a succesful dissident on which "Stalinist scissors" of history are being now attempted on Wikipedia by those two politically motivated characters who proposed the deletion of this entry, as if she never has existed as an important person, both Romanian and Belgian. Being succesful both as an actress in Romania--a real symbol of feminine beauty on the movie screen--like for instance Marilyn Monroe, Brigitte Bardot, Sara Montiel, Lolobrigida, etc. were--as well as being very successful as a scientist in Belgium, seems to be quite unbearable to such revanchard characters! There is more here at stake than just the correct referencing, etc. required by the wikings..."

This is not only a bewildering and deceptive assumption, with more clues to the flawed motivations behind creating the article, it features strong personal attacks. Dahn (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The horrible editing of the article's creator is not really helping either. He's continuously adding material that is either not verifiable (membership in Belgian academy) or patently false (chair of oceanography). I've tried to engage him in a discussion, but apparently my style irritates him even more and he seems to think that I have ulterior motives. Yesterday night, Drmies and I have done a lot of cleanup on the article and have pared it down (mostly) to what we really know. I think there's a verifiable source that she obtained her PhD at the university of Bucharest (just didn't get around to adding it) and the fact that a documentary was made on her life should somehow also be added (even if the abstract on the documentary maker's website is seriously inaccurate - but that often happens when academics talk with journalist/etc). I agree with David Eppstein that Mosora does not meet WP:PROF, but the movies push her just over the bar for me, so that's why I am at a "weak keep". --Crusio (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, but with a note: Crusio gives me far too much credit, since I did only a tiny little bit of work. I also tried to discuss matters with that editor, but he deleted my posting. And I agree with the assessment that it's the combination of factors that make her pass the notability bar for me. Dahn, I understand your concerns, or some of them anyway, but I'm going to assume the best, that this stuff is true, that the TV program was there, and that someone soon will open up the Belgian archives. Now, if the above-mentioned editor wants to call me an anti-Stalinist freedom fighter because of that, that's fine but undeserved, and Dahn, if he wants to call you a Stalinist because you vote delete, well, you may have been, like me, called worse by more reliable sources ;). Drmies (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that there was such a documentary made relates to a personal web page self-published the person who claims to have produced it. The claim that such a documentary was made, and the notability of that documentary, is dependent on that source - which should it itself not be used on wikipedia (btw, the filmmaker herself does not merit a page, so it can't even be used in the article on itself, the only exception afforded by wikipedia rules). Btw: Technically, it is not a documentary, but a TV report, and I find it highly questionable that TV reports, particularly those from 1990s Romanian television stations, which may or may not have actually been aired, can validate anything about a person's contextual notability. Dahn (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, btw, the only mentions of her film career that don't trace back to imdb are from commercial links - video rental outlets such as videofil.ro and cinemarx.ro. Spam. Dahn (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm gonna ask again: is there a single fragment of prose that this article can use as a source? Her various mentions in web directories do not validate importance, and their addition as sources is borderline to WP:SYNTH (meaning there is an implicit editorial voice for the overall importance, while the entries themsleves actually say "your search yielded x results"). Dahn (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I find the existence of a report on TV about someone (if we can find better evidence than an obscure web page that this documentary existed and aired) to be quite convincing evidence of notability: someone publically noted her, hence she is notable. What it isn't helping so much is verifiability. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the argument you're constructing runs parallel to the "public access"-like quality of Romanian TV in the 1990s (it would transform into "notable people" the likes of NutraSweet distributors, skilled shoemakers etc.), and therefore fails us as a rule of thumb (even in other countries: should we start having articles on, say, regional executives once interviewed by Michael Moore?), let me note that there is yet no indication of the "documentary" ever being aired. Dahn (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above keeps, DGG Crusio, etc. I added a prize she received from the Belgian Academy to the article, and noted she was also known as Florentina Stan-Mosora (or Mosora-Stan by one ref) after her marriage. This shows she was interested in oceanography.John Z (talk) 09:18, 22 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) 08:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mega Man cast members

Contested PROD. Was listified from Category:Mega Man cast members eons ago. Basically a full-credit list of all cast members from all Mega Man video games that does not provide anything else for detalis—basically indiscriminate information.

I am also nominating the following related page for the exact same rationale as above (just replace the word Mega Man with Metal Gear):

MuZemike 16:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 16:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike 16:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. The articles do not show how the list has made any sort of impact in the real world, nor is anything properly cited from reliable sources. Notability of the subject matter isn't apparant, either. Why this was listified from the category and why the category was deleted is beyond me. This should be unlistified and recategorized. Them From Space 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was de-categorized because it would put articles in too many categories. Someone might have appeared in 50 or 100 films for example. Nerfari (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Themfromspace. Too many problems (missing sections, intro, + others). Versus22_talk 18:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prodded this and the other mentioned article for basically similar reasons. The information is unsourced and trivial.じんない 20:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the deletion rationale here would apply to every single category on wikipedia :) Nerfari (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Themfromspace. One of many such articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete:~~ Agree that both are indiscriminate collections of information that demonstrate little encyclopedic value. Even if it emulates a category, the category is such an obscure cross section that it also proves to be of little encyclopedic value. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete Mega Man, but Neutral on Metal Gear per discussion below. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Merge with the respected pages. Ikip (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists that try to emulate categories are a basic WP:CLN nono. The category itself would be overcategorization. Since the list is indiscriminate in which voice actors it includes and doesn't provide any detailed information on the roles they played in which part of the series, it lacks encyclopedic value and violates multiple list guidelines which aren't easy to solve. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MGM. Lists that try to emulate categores are a basic no-no and what WP:CLN says about them is very silly. I must also say I sympathize with Themfromspace's inability to comprehend the closing rationale of the category deletion, it's almost incoherent, but Nerfari seems to have the gist of it. Benefix (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree completely. That CFD (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25) was a mess. I, too, am wondering how they got a delete out of that. MuZemike 00:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Benefix has admitted to being a sockpuppet, though I have no idea of whom. DHowell (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - While Benefix has stated he/she violated Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, I'd like to point out that "a sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes". Benefix's contributions do not seem to be doing that, and they've further stated that this user account is a Single-purpose account, which is not against policy. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    - By not disclosing the main account Benefix is associated with, I believe this user is using the account to avoid scrutiny, which is against policy. And I do not see this as one of the legitimate uses of alternative accounts. DHowell (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, but the "Avoid scrutiny" section stipulates that the reason is to "confuse or deceive editors". Benefix's contributions do not seem to be "fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive". Also, coming forth and admitting that they have an alternate account basically prohibits such behavior because it attracts scrutiny. One wrong step and the account is blocked. What puppeteer would put themselves in a situation where they could not use the puppet to its full extent?
        Regardless, I agree the use of the account without disclosure of its related account does paint a bad picture. However, that is a discussion for a forum different from this one. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
        WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY says "In particular, sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings", doesn't this cover AfD? I looked at WP:SPI and I'm not sure how to go about reporting someone if I don't know or have a suspicion about the primary account. DHowell (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of importance to warrant article namespace. Better covered as a category. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP and improve. I must stop this pile-on deletefest before this gets snowballed. This list needs improvement, not deletion. It can be improved with sourcing and more information (like which specific works each actor appears in or what characters they play). It is not "indiscriminate"—it's not a FAQ, a plot summary, lyrics, statistics, or news report. It's not a "directory"—it's a list of people who are at least partially "famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic", i.e. they are known for being notable voice actors in a notable and popular video game series. "Unsourced" is a fixable problem as all of these actors can be verified as voice actors for a Mega Man or Metal Gear video game or TV series to reliable sources. Many of the other complaints above are also fixable problems. All the actors, except for a small number in the Metal Gear list, are notable and have Wikipedia articles. I put no merit in statements from sockpuppets that WP:CLN is "silly". Mgm seems to be misreading CLN because I find nothing in that guideline that says that "list that try to emulate categories are a basic no-no", it in fact says that deleting lists that are "redundant" to categories are a no-no. And as the category was deleted, this list is in no way redundant or "better as a category". Bring up a DRV on the category CFD if you want to use that excuse to delete this list. The overcategorization guideline in no way applies to lists—someone already tried that and it got no consensus at all. There is no reason that the wiki process couldn't improve this imperfect list article over time. I'd work on it myself but I am currently extremely busy with real-life events (I wouldn't even have commented here today if I didn't think a snowball was approaching). DHowell (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I can appreciate the level of detail put into your posting, I feel I have to still disagree.

Benefix is not the only one that believes the list should be deleted, and other reasons have been provide.
Several members from WP:Video games, which this article falls under, do not feel this list is a suitable topic for Wikipedia. While our voices technically do not carry any more weight than any other editor, we had to deal with numerous similar topics and have developed a good idea of what is a suitable video game page on Wikipedia.
Though unsourced content is a fixable problem, sourcing would necessarily make this article suitable for Wikipedia.
While WP:IINFO only explicitly states that FAQs, plot summaries, lyrics, statistics, and news reports are not allowed on Wikipedia, that portion of the policy lists them as examples to further illustrate that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
Furthermore, just because the policy does not explicitly prohibit something doesn't make it suitable for Wikipedia. WP:NOTSTUPID states that "Wikipedia is not any of a very long list of other terrible ideas." In short, it is not Wikipedia's job to anticipate and list every possible violation of WP:NOT. We have to read the policy and interpret the core idea.
While I can't say with a 100% certainty that this list cannot be improved to a level suitable for Wikipedia, I do not think it is a likely or viable option. If you truly believe it can be improved, it might be worthwhile to try creating a draft in your user page or transferring the content to Mega Man Wiki.

Sorry, but I still believe the list is not suitable for Wikipedia and should be deleted. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

What you seem to be saying is that even a well-sourced, verified version of this list with information beyond just a simple list of names would still not necessarily be "suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." What I'm trying to understand, is what exactly makes this list topic unsuitable? What is the "core idea" being violated here? What exactly distinguishes this list topic (not the current incarnation of the list) from, for example, List of voice actors in the Grand Theft Auto series, a featured list, which was created looking like this, a list created from a category which was deleted per the same CFD? Why would it not be likely or viable that this list could be brought up to the standards of the GTA series list? If a list of GTA voice actors can become "one of the best lists in Wikipedia," why would a list of Mega Man or Metal Gear voice actors be a "terrible idea"? DHowell (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be quite honest with you. That version of GTA voice actors was horrendous and I would take a similar stance against it. As I said, however, I don't believe the endeavor is impossible. If you can clean up the list and demonstrate notability, then more power to you. That's why I suggested creating a draft or moving it to another wiki. But in its current form and my knowledge of the series, I do not believe the list is a good idea. While the existence of a similar list topic does show poor content can be exceptionally cleaned up, it does not prove to me that every such list can go from rags to riches.

The reason verifiability is not enough is because of Wikipedia:Notability. Topics need to be notable to be on Wikipedia. Though the Mega Man series and individual voice actors are notable, what makes being a Mega Man voice actor notable? The GTA series received a good deal of press targeted at its voice acting and ability to acquire high profile and high caliber celebrities. To my knowledge, the Mega Man and Metal Gear Solid series has not received anywhere near the amount of similar reception. If sources can be found that deal specifically with the series' voice actors, then I'll be happy to change my opinion about this topic. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Personally, while the notability guideline has its uses, I really think it is something that ought to be ignored when it comes to lists, except to the extent it can be used to determine whether a person should be on a list or not. I'll be honest with you, I really don't understand the aversion to lists and "listcruft" that people seem to have. Why is a list like this or the first draft of the GTA voice actors list "horrendous"? Do you similarly cringe when looking at the index at the end of a book? Because that is how I see such lists function, as indices to the contents of Wikipedia. Categories in Wikipedia can serve this function somewhat, but are limited in usefulness and navigability, and can contribute to "category clutter" if an article ends up overloaded with links to dozens of categories. For that matter, do you find categories "horrendous" as well? I'll admit that finding sources to "prove" the notability of Mega Man voice actors as a group per se to the extent that you're asking for seems to be difficult, though finding sources for Metal Gear might be a bit easier, e.g., I found this in the Hollywood Reporter which discusses Metal Gear voice actors to some extent; Debi Mae West, voice of Meryl Silverburgh is featured here and won a Spike Video Game Award for the role; David Hayter, the voice of Solid Snake, has some coverage here; and more can be found, showing the notability of certain actors as Metal Gear voice actors. I strongly feel that FUTON bias prevents us from finding may sources, though, that could build up a better case for notability for these lists. But what I don't understand is the need to put these lists in wiki-ghettos until they can "prove their worth". It's not like this is a "list of people who had a hamburger for lunch the other day" or some such silly list. It's a list of notable people categorized under something they are notable for. It shouldn't be required that a list have the likes of Samuel L. Jackson or Kyle MacLachlan (i.e. people who generate a ton of coverage for just about anything they do) in order to exist on Wikipedia; ironically, I notice that many of the people listed on the GTA list don't even have articles, whereas every name on the Mega Man list and most of the names on the Metal Gear list are blue links. So a list with a few extremely famous people and a bunch of non-notables is great for Wikipedia, but a list entirely made up of notable people is a terrible idea? I still don't get it. DHowell (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sources you've found, I wouldn't be opposed to keeping the Metal Gear list provided it will get cleaned up. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete The topic is a bit broad, the personalities of the characters don't stand out very much, and there isn't much of a point to the article at all- I doubt many people will wonder about the cast of characters in the game. Twinwarrior (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, from WikiProject Video Game's guidelines: " Because the encyclopedia will be read by gamers and non-gamers alike, it is important not to clutter an article with a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia. A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: If the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers." This list not only has no value to people who never played the game, nor would any non-player suddenly think "hey, why wouldn't I just look up what voice actors there are in Mega Man series", but I'm also ready to go on a limb and postulate that the list of voice actors can be found quite readily in each game's credit should a player wonder. MLauba (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's right, and once you know the cast list all you have to do is type in the names to see which ones have articles. Far too many IMO. Benefix (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't List of characters in the Mega Man series give the voice actors? Nerfari (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasoning is that "characters" refer to the fictional element of the series and not the behind-the-scenes element. That is, cast members aren't characters in video gaming (movies are different). MuZemike 23:35, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksons Fencing

Rescued from speedy, but unconvinced it's notable. Has a claim re the Trident system, but is the source reliable? Dweller (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Of the three sources currently in the article, two look like press releases and one is just a link to the UK govt body, which doesn't mention Jacksons. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, and I also think it has WP:SOAP issues... Colds7ream (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the author also has WP:COI issues, too, being an employee of the company... Colds7ream (talk) 18:54, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unconvinced of notability of Trident system and hence of this 200+ person company. Seems to be principally an ad. JJL (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A government organization seems to have commended their security fence. Congratulations to Jacksons Fencing! Yayyyy! The people of the world must know! See WP: SPAM. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. No assertion of notability. No external coverage to show notability. LK (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is pretty much an advertisement, and the UK government recognizing their fence (a fact which isn't even sourced by a third party) does not make this company notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:29, 22 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 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content moved to Joe Brooks (singer). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Brooks

Fails to establish notability. The main claim to fame seems to be popularity on Myspace. There are local radio/press promotional interviews but that seems to be all. His own YouTube page describes him as "Just another bedroom musician" which seems to be a fair summary. Previous attempts at establishing articles - Joe Brooks (Singer) and Joe Brooks (Pop singer) have been deleted. Lame Name (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

According to the notability guidelines listed under music, an artist is notable if they meet ANY of the criteria listed. Joe Brooks meets two criteria points:

1) It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.

As linked in the references section, Joe Brooks has been on BBC radio, interviewed for the Birmingham Mail, AND Magazine, and other sources.

4) Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.

Some of the articles referenced point to his sold out UK Tour from February/March 2009.

Those points alone meet the guidelines set by wikipedia for notability.

As for the "bedroom musician claim," there is no reference to it in the main article. Therefore any reference to it by the user who marked this article for deletion is irrelevant.

The user that market this for deletion says that his only claim to fame is myspace popularity. However, myspace has over 5 million bands/artists ^[1]. So the fact that Joe Brooks is listed as often listed as the number one artist means that he is very notable. Myspace might not be traditional media yet, but as digital downloads and streams surpass physical sales, Myspace has become more and more important ^[2]. Evilkarrot (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Catching Up with Myspace Music, CNet, March 11, 2009
^ CD Sales Drop, Digital Downloads on the Rise, ZDNet, March 17, 2009

Keep Notable based on coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 14:23, 21 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 00:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. The above are articles about digital downloads on Myspace, and don't represent substantial coverage of Brooks himself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The references above are just to illustrate that Myspace and digital downloads are a force in the industry. This is in response the question about whether myspace is relevant posed by the original user who marked this article for deletion. 75.56.210.213 (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The Myspace connection is irrelevant without substantial coverage elsewhere as was the case with, for example, Lily Allen. Lame Name (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relunctantly Keep, only because there are a few sources that I see to be nontrivial. But puhleas. The Myspace stuff is completely non-notable. The only thing that proves is that he is good at self-promoting himself. Period. Its embarrasing. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 00:25, 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 merge to List of people who died after being tasered in Canada. Black Kite 12:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quilem Registre Taser incident

Article about an event of police brutality that violates WP:NOT#NEWS which states "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own" and WP:N as the incident itself hasn't only been reported on and not discussed in the depth required to become an encyclopedia article. Them From Space 16:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of people who died after being tasered in Canada. Although there seem to be quite a few "_____ Taser incident" articles on Wikipedia, created from the news, this one does not seem to be notable on its own. Mandsford (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Insufficient notability (one event) for stand alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of this article is one thing, the historical notability of the event quite another. In fact, the event is of critical importance in understanding the issues surrounding NOT the alleged police brutality (as the nominator would like to believe), but rather, the mounting controversy surrounding the use of police tasers. Actually, I'm sort of puzzled by this nomination. Obviously, the article is well referenced, stable and most certainly neutral. Are you sure you have not overextended yourself somehow? --Poeticbent talk 03:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to List of people who died after being tasered in Canada, up to 1 paragraph seems reasonable. Disclosure: per Talk:Quilem Registre Taser incident#Notability tag, I had placed a {{Notability}} tag July 2008. ~~I plan to adapt that rationale here.~~ Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this incident received national coverage, this article easily passes WP:Verifiability. Many of the deaths in List of people who died after being tasered in Canada are cited to national sources such as CBC News and The Globe and Mail, but only two have independent articles. Registre was tasered within 24 hours of Robert Dziekański's death, dying four days later. The close timing has caused the two incidents to be mentioned together in news articles, despite having no actual connection. Registre's family continues (through mid-2008) to advocate for an investigation into the incident, receiving a small amount of follow-up coverage. I think this is insufficient to support a stand-alone article.
  If this incident foreshadows a controversy or forms a noteworthy pattern, an article should look at the big picture. Covering the encompassing issue in this article would be a WP:COATRACK. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed notifications based on {{adw}} on the Talk pages of 4 related Taser articles. Editors have occasionally suggested coverage of other incidents there, and I think this AfD would benefit from the input of interested editors. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Talk:List of people who died after being tasered in Canada – proposed merge target (diff)
2. Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident – prominent Canadian incident, most active related article (diff)
3. Talk:Taser – main article (diff)
4. Talk:Taser safety issues (formerly Taser controversy) – sub-article relevant to deaths (diff)
Keep. The incident has been reported but also discussed in relation to Taser use in Canada and elsewhere. While much of the discussion is French-language I think the incident and article meet eligibility requirements here. RomaC (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of people who died after being tasered in Canada. As others state, the incident appears to be important in relation to taser deaths in Canada, so that's the context in which it should be discussed. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 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 redirect to When Silence Is Broken, The Night Is Torn. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty Through Broken Glass

An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article has never existed or has been deleted QuestionOfAnarchy (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the single is notable enough for inclusion here or not (singles usually need chart performance to justify articles) but the artist's article, Eyes Set to Kill, does exist and has not been deleted. Note also that three of the band's other singles, Reach, Liar in the Glass and This Love You Breathe, also have articles which should likely be treated the same way as this one. Merge' all four to their parent albums (both of which also do have articles already), which is the standard AFD solution for songs that aren't strongly notable in their own right. For the record, despite getting a notification on my talk page, my only prior involvement in editing this article was to add it to Category:2007 singles at a time when it was sitting in Category:Category needed. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Just another non-notable single. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No suggestion of independent notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable non-charting song. JamesBurns (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or at least redirect per Bearcat's reasoning, which appears to have been ignored by the last two commenters. Deletions shouldn't be based on faulty assumptions about the non-exisntence of a band article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if it has a reliable source (but I could not find any from news), if not delete--Caspian blue 17:10, 20 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 14:18, 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 redirect to Reach (Eyes Set to Kill album). Cirt (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reach (Eyes Set to Kill song)

An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article has never existed or has been deleted QuestionOfAnarchy (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The artist's article, Eyes Set to Kill, does exist and has not been deleted. In the absence of evidence that the songs have any strong claim to notability on their own, merge all four songs to their parent albums. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Just another non-notable single. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable non-charting song. JamesBurns (talk) 09:54, 18 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 14:31, 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 redirect to Eyes Set to Kill. Cirt (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liar In The Glass

An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article has never existed or has been deleted QuestionOfAnarchy (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The artist's article, Eyes Set to Kill, does exist and has not been deleted. In the absence of evidence that the songs have any strong claim to notability on their own, merge all four songs to their parent albums. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Just another non-notable single. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable non-charting song. JamesBurns (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Bearcat. Since this song has no qualifier in its title, it's a perfectly fine redirect option. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 18 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 22:55, 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 02:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darling (ESTK song)

An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant--QuestionOfAnarchy (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of evidence that the songs have any strong claim to notability on their own, merge all four songs to their parent albums. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 17 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" 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable non-charting song. JamesBurns (talk) 10:02, 18 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 14:20, 21 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 00:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real indication of notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:18, 22 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. Confirmed blatant hoax by serial offender. Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DisneyMixer

Another set of speculative Disney albums going under the WP:HAMMER AndrewHowse (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:NALBUMS. Additionally, articles are completely unsourced. Google search of "Disney Mixer" turned up kitchen appliances. Wouldn't be opposed once criteria are met. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete More hoaxism from the Disneymania Vandal, who has already been taken to AfD here, here, here, and here; hallmarks are usually writing hoax album articles which try to rationalize the hot artists of today will still be in Disney's stable two years from now. Article creator should be indeffed for socking and hoaxing. Nate • (chatter) 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot, no notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all (G3) as blatant hoaxery. May I also ask why this now-serial hoaxist has not been blocked, yet? MuZemike 23:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because each outbreak is under a new account. At least some of them are blocked, and then in turn are abandoned I guess. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:03, 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 04:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LIGATT Security International

Delete promotional article about nn company Mayalld (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is about the company's founder, who has done nothing notable outside of founding the company:

Comment. I should note that the primary content of both articles was added by now-banned user LIGATTSecurity (talk · contribs) and user Melanielbanks (talk · contribs), which bears a WP:DUCK resemblance to Melanie Banks, who is a PR employee of the company ([1]; see bottom of page). KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say speedily. I don't see any indication of notability ot meet inclusion guidelines and seems like spam to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, only sources I could find were press releases, which according to WP:CORP don't count towards notability. ~EdGl (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per User:KuyaBriBri and also because the page does not seem to sufficiently demonstrate his expertise other than by labeling him as an "expert". CopaceticThought (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: My comment was directed toward the Gregory D. Evans page but my general opinions apply toward both pages. CopaceticThought (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotiona article for a non-consumer tech business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 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. Tone 13:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPOOFEM.com

Delete promotional article about nn company Mayalld (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question. I believe this AfD discussion should be bundled with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LIGATT Security International. Is it too late to do so? KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I should note that the primary content of this article was added by now-banned user LIGATTSecurity (talk · contribs) and user Melanielbanks (talk · contribs), which bears a WP:DUCK resemblance to Melanie Banks, who is a PR employee of the company ([2]; see bottom of page). KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only sources I could find were press releases, which according to WP:CORP don't count towards notability. ~EdGl (talk) 03:10, 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 00:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam for a non-notable product/website. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LIGATT Security International. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatent advertising, shows no notability. Bacchus87 (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any neutral sources, written as advertising, possible hoax? PrettyxVacant (talk) 02:44, 22 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, A7/ G11 - non admin closure. -Senseless!... says you, says me 13:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina terence

Delete non-notable model Mayalld (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. Note that Sabrina Terence was previously speedy deleted as A7 (don't know if that was any different from the present article). Also likely this is autobiographical (only editor besided nom is Sabseterence (talk · contribs)). KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it was your intention, but I'd like to remind everyone that it doesn't really matter if the article is different from the previously speedied one. G4 speedy would only apply if it was AFDed before. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11 Colds7ream (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. A7 and G11 both apply, in spades. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete NN musician and Spam, I went ahead and tagged it. -Senseless!... says you, says me 03:24, 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 delete. Icewedge (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SGH-T619

Non-notable commercial product. Reads like an advert; completely unreferenced. No claim to notability offered. Mikeblas (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless WP:N can be satisfied by significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Wikipedia is not a mirror of every manufacturer's catalog of their products. Edison (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Product is not notable independent of Samsung; WP:NOTCATALOG. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reason why this make and model is any more notable than any other. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. This is a clear case of someone copying product stats without adding encyclopedic value. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 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 Transwiki. Transwiki MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poochandi

This confused entry is not sure whether it wants to be a wiktionary entry or an entry for a Tamil song that seems to have gained some sort of cult status on YouTube. Either way, there are no references to notability. My speedy deletion request was denied hence I am opening it up for debate as to whether it's a keeper or not. LittleOldMe (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is notable and included in a popular song. Until it can all be sorted out, best not to delete either. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 17 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 14:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are a couple of sources found by a Latin alphabet Google News search that seem to confirm that this is an equivalent of the bogey man. Searching in Tamil comes up with more hits but, beautiful though it is, the Tamil script is totally incomprehensible to me. I know that we have plenty of Tamil editors here, so if anyone reading this can read the language could you please check whether there are any good sources there? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:18, 21 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 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not of much significance. Every Dravidian languages might have such slang/words. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the same search that Phil performed. Given that such a search is not likely to produce all the possible results, I'm staying on the safe side. And look at this strange hit. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: slang term, wiktionary entry. JamesBurns (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least the first part seems to be an authentic bogeyman [3] Nerfari (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not appropriate for English wikipedia. But, may be, just may be for Tamil wikipedia. most suitable for Tamil wiktionary, if exists. --Docku: What's up? 17:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to delete all the other "non-English" bogeymen too? Nerfari (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not if they are notable in context with English language. --Docku: What's up? 22:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in notability guidelines that says subjects have to be notable "in context with English language". The word "English" in "English Wikipedia" simply means that it is written in English, not that it's only about the English-speaking world. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this belongs in wiktionary. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary entry; inappropriate here. To keep this article it is not sufficient to find sources that verify its meaning (which seems possible). Firstly, we need to be clear if we are talking about just the word poochandi as a synonymn of boogeyman, or the concept of pochandi in Tamil culture. If the former, then the article belongs on Tamil wikipedia, with an interwiki link added to the boogeyman page. If the latter, we need sources that discuss the origins of the concept, the etymology of the term, and its linguistic and cultural significance. Such sources seem to be unavailable in English, and we perhaps need the help of Tamil speaking wikipedians to extend the search; I will reconsider my vote if such sources are found. Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 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. Icewedge (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

± Junkie

Fails WP:BK. A search for reviews or reliable sources was unsuccessful, even when Japanese sources were included. PROD tag removed without rational. Page has been tagged as lacking in notability since August 2008 with no improvement. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 13:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 4 chapters? Seems fairly open and shut with regards to notability, we have trouble showing notability on some series that have run for a couple of years as it is. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ± Junkie, one shot by Yuuya Asahina | ANN. No licensor in US/UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. So not enough evidences of notability and not enough Third party coverage for to write a write article --KrebMarkt 15:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unnotable series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 00:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for reliable sources providing significant coverage turns up nothing. --Farix (Talk) 02:43, 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. Icewedge (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie garage

An invented music genre with no verification from any reliable sources. Content is complete original research The Real Libs-speak politely 13:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow. Yes. Original research at its worse. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 13:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term rarely appears in the mainstream music press - think that says it all really. A term used only by one (frankly not very well-known) band and/or their fans to describe their style is clearly not going to pass muster -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:Verifiability. LittleOldMe (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Extremepro (talk) 21:55, 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 to delete the article. Fails WP:N and WP:BK. No clear indication to me that sales figures are for this manga on its own as opposed to its parent. Article is still lacking independant, third party sources that set out how it could pass WP:N, even after the first AfD. --Ged UK 10:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nurarihyon no Mago

Unnotable manga series. Completely fails WP:N and WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, no reviews, doesn't even appear to have an Anime News Network listing. Beyond being able to verify it exists, there is nothing about it. Last AfD closed as no-consensus. Two months allowed for additional notability, and no changes to the article at all.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Amazon.co.jp can provide verifiability, as Collectonian notes. It doesn't have an official ANN page but does have listings in comic rankings as fifth and ninth. A review found is from an unreliable, fan-based source. Disclaimer: I read this series too at one point. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 13:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original nomination. The subject still fails WP:N and WP:BK, and WP:BK has rejected the addition of sales figures/rankings as a benchmark for inclusion since the original nomination. --Farix (Talk) 14:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No vote, same as before. I found no reliable coverage in English aside from the basic publication facts, so by objective measures this seems to fail WP:BK. However, the amount of notice this series gets, in multiple wikipedias and a wide variety of sources, some marginally reliable and a lot non-reliable, convinces me that the series is in fact notable, even if I cannot demonstrate it, and while I can't convince myself to say "keep", I cannot say any form of delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Personally, I think a book that sells 100,000 copies in a single week (from one of the links posted by NocturneNoir) is notable. While I know that there wasn't consensus on WP:BK to add sales figures as a criteria, the reasons against doing so seemed to be that people could site deceptive statistics (e.g. high placing in a sales chart in a tiny country, or sales figures inflated by the publisher), and not that high sales or a high sales ranking didn't indicate notability. I don't think these sales figures are deceptive (Japan isn't a tiny country, and the publisher would have to be very stupid to ship vastly too many copies by the third volume of the series). I also find it odd a comparable ranking from the same sorce (Oricon, which ANN is citing) would be considered as evidence of notibility for a song but not for a manga. Calathan (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Featured in Weekly Shōnen Jump, a very popular manga magazine. Has several volumes published already, and appears to be selling quite well. Remember, the guidelines are not policy, just suggestions of what works sometimes. It says on the notability page, that sometimes you should WP:Ignore all rules and use wp:Common sense instead. Dream Focus 13:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently, you think that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines never work because you always suggest we ignore them at AFD. Being serialized in Weekly Shōnen Jump means nothing. Popularity =/= notability. Nor do sells figures or rankings, which were recently been rejected at WP:BK. --Farix (Talk) 02:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected by the small number of people who posted there, stating that it should be a certain way. I can't really take a guideline serious, that 99.9% of wikipedia users never had any say in. People should just think for themselves, and make a decision based on common sense. If it is obvious something has a large number of readers, don't their opinions make it more notable, than just a review from a single newspaper reviewer? Dream Focus 02:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you couldn't "win", so you are going to pretend it didn't matter. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have weight, and they can't be dismissed because you don't like them. You argued for a change of consensus, it didn't occur. That's how Wikipedia works. But also, one aspect of WP:IAR is that it should never undermine existing polices and guidelines. It should only be invoiced when following them doesn't make any sense or is clearly harmful to Wikipedia's purpose, building an encyclopedia. You consent invoking of WP:IAR in every AFD clearly demonstrates that you have no understanding of the policy. --Farix (Talk) 03:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. I had the same viewpoint before trying to change the guidelines into something more reasonable. And stay focused on the topic please. If most people believe that it is common sense to have an article, for any established series in one of the most popular manga magazines in the world, then the article will be preserved, is sometimes happens. If they prefer to follow the guideline, which is not absolute law, then they'll delete it, do to the fact that this type of media almost never gets any third party reviews. Dream Focus 03:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But still rejected. Wikipedia's polices and guidelines are built on consensus. To create a consensus, editors need to participate in the discussions. It is bad faith to marginalize those who choose to participate in the discussions process by always dismissing the policies and guidelines outright because you didn't like them and couldn't change consensus. --Farix (Talk) 04:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly per Farix above. This doesn't meet WP:BK as we can't find independant, third-party sources that mention it nontrivally and discuss its relationship with the real world. Sales figures mean nothing as notability isn't the same as popularity. Them From Space 16:54, 22 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 Famous_Five_series#1978_series. MBisanz ^talk 09:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Gallagher

Contested PROD. One minor role in a tv adaptation does not seem to indicate sufficient notability for WP:ENTERTAINER. Also, may be some confusion with another actress of the same name. Apart from this one role, unable to find any indication of notability. IMDB entry for Michele (one L) doesn't seem to be the same person. CultureDrone (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources provided or found. Fails GNG. - SummerPhD (talk)
Delete' Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I wouldn't consider one of the four main characters in the Famous Five to be a minor role in the least (number 5 was their dog). Since her name is a likely search term, I'd recommend redirecting it to the place discussing her only role: Famous_Five_series#1978_series.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the proposed deletion. This TV series was immensely popular in the 70's and the popularity of these child actors in Britain and abroad was huge. The Famous Five book series is also immensely popular and has been translated in countless languages. This was the first TV adaptation and it became instantly a success. The portrait of George Kirrin that Gallagher was able to represent, was so intense and credible that she "became George" for many fans. Sadly, Michele passed away at a young age and she unfortunately cannot revive her popularity, but she deserves not to be forgotten and Wikipedia is the best shrine for her memory to live on. If you need further reference you can go to the forum pages of the Enid Blyton Society (www.enidblytonsociety.co.uk) and I am certain you will immediately appreciate how important Michele still is for countless fans who remember her and love her for the emotions she was able to stir. I find it very saddening that she can be wiped away from memory like this. However, who am I to decide. You guys evidently know best. Cheers for now Andrearossi (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Gallagher meets the criteria for actors very well. Her portrayal of "George" gave the 78 Famous Five tv-series that extra something. For countless fans all over the world she is a symbol for their own childhood in the seventies. -- Tintifax09 (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michele_Gallagher" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintifax09 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — Tintifax09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a memorial site. The popularity and notability of the TV/book series are not the subject here. The popularity of Gallagher is not the subject here. The subject is the notability of Gallagher. Notability for individuals can be determined under two different guidelines. Under our general notability guideline, a subject is notable if it has received substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. There is no indication that this is the case. Under our entertainer guideline, she would be notable if 1) she has had significant roles in multiple notable productions or 2) she has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following or 3) she has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field. There is no indication whatsoever that 1 or 3 applies. This leaves #2. We have arguments that two online forums demonstrate a large fan base. If there were reliable sources saying she has a loarge fan base, I would agree. I do not see this as the case. The current article does not establish her notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:Creative. None of his roles in film or TV have been "significant roles". Untick (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untick, I disagree. She played the main role (George Kirrin is the main charachter in the Famous Five) in all 26 episodes of a televised series that aired for two seasons on Britain's ITV and was exported in dozens of countries. This is clearly a "significant role".Andrearossi (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that playing the main character in a nationally shown TV series meets the criteria for WP:Creative. Please improve the article by asserting notability. If you are able to add reliable and referenced information into the article, then I will change my vote to Keep. Untick (talk) 13:05, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. So Why 14:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Parfitt

~~lacks notability, zero citations in the article. Finding reliable sources may be difficult due to the name being shared by others.~~ Rtphokie (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Neutral for now; I can be convinced. I declined the speedy nomination since there is an assertion of notability, but I don't see sufficient evidence that the subject is actually notable, either in the article itself or in searching elsewhere. (There are two citations in the article, however, and both do mention Parfitt.) Frank | talk 12:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A couple references have been added. The subject was a founding member of The Apples in Stereo and has been in other notable bands riffic (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founding member of a notable band and has reliable sources covering him. Meets WP:MUSIC#C6 and WP:BIO. So Why 14:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founder of notable band and sufficiently covered on his own to be considered notable per C1 (WP:GNG) music criterion. =- Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn appears to be notable, still needs improvement on the sources however.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:07, 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 merge to Tourism in Karnataka. MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in North Karnataka

I am listing this article per WP:NOTTRAVEL. All the notable tourist destinations are covered in their own articles and there is no additional encyclopedic information here at all. There are large, unencyclopedic sections such as "Top 10 Tourist Attractions of North Karnataka", and the whole thing is extremely WP:POV and peacocky. The same subject matter could possibly be covered in an encyclopedic way: it could talk about economic significance, tourist demographics, and objectively present a summary of the main destinations (supported by relevant information such as visitor numbers). However, this just looks like promotional material from a tourist board and there is almost nothing here that could be salvaged.- Papa November (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Papa,

Thanks for your comments on the article "Tourism in North Karnataka". I am ready to take your suggestions; I will try to modify the article to meet the standard of wikipedia.

As you already know North Karnataka is known for the historical places associated with Chalukyas, Rastrakutas, Kadambas, Vijayanagara Empire and others.

This article is necessary to provide the information related to Tourism in North Karnataka. I hope you will not suggest this article after modification.

Thanks and Regards

Manjunath Doddamani Manjunath doddamani Topics (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

last line correction :

I hope you will not suggest this article for deletion after modification. Manjunath doddamani Topics (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for your reply, Manjunath. At a bare minimum, all peacock terms and point-of view statements would need to be removed. The unencyclopedic sections like "Tourism Circuits in North Karnataka" and bare lists of places to visit would also have to be replaced by encyclopedic information such as the effects of tourism upon the economy and the environment. In short, it may be easier to delete it and rewrite it completely as I think it takes the wrong approach to the subject. I'll try to strip out some of the most problematic parts and we can see how it looks. Papa November (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative suggestion: How about stripping out all the WP:POV, WP:PEACOCK terms and tagging all the unreferenced material, converting it to list format and moving it to List of tourist attractions in North Karnataka? Papa November (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge North Karnataka. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:33, 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 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete each piece of this to the articles of the districts of North Kanaranata such as Uttar Kannada, Dharwar.... No need to have them in a separate article such as this. You are duplication.. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tourism in Karnataka, which is probably what this is spun off of. There is no state called "North Karnataka". The Indian state of Karnataka is slightly smaller in area than the American state of Nebraska. Although eastern Nebraska has more exciting nightlife than western Nebraska, I would not support articles for either of those two sections of a defined area. Mandsford (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tourism in Karnataka and clean up to remove the excessive peacockery. No clear justification for cretaing this subpage + it anyways needs to be rewritten to comply with wikipedia's sourcing and NPOV policies. Even the official organizations for tourism promotion ([4], [5]) deal with the whole state rather than this region alone; and encyclopedic content like number of domestic/international tourists per year is also compiled statewide AFAIK. Abecedare (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Karnataka is a big, beautiful state with a lot of tourist attractions. Despite it being not well referenced as it is now, it still appears to have the potential to stand on its own. --Docku: What's up? 04:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Tourism in Karnataka is a substantial article, but not so long as to require the forking off of subarticles, at least not yet. That article has a section on North Karnataka which will be a suitable merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:38, 26 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 23:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get Love!! Field no Ōji Sama

Unnotable manga series; fails WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, no extensive reviews, no awards, nothing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The plot summary was an exact copy of ANN's summary, thus a copyvio and has been removed. --Farix (Talk) 12:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author is notable so I think her manga should have an article (it would probably need clean up if it stays though). Laurent (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I have yet to do my own evaluation of the subject yet, being written by a notable author is not among the criteria for inclusion (WP:NOTE, WP:BK). Only the works of a historically significant writers, such as Osamu Tezuka, are given such blanket assertions. --Farix (Talk) 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's true, but they at least deserve a merge to an author article. Otherwise the guidelines stop us from covering these authors comprehensively. To write about an author properly, you can't avoid discussing their work. The only point of contention is really whether it should have a separate article or not. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per guidelines, in an author biography, works are primarily just briefly listed with release date and title, not plot summary. This is already included in her article, so it would be a redirec over a merge. I'd also really question just how "notable" Ikeyamada is. No significant works thus far, none ever licensed, only two with articles both of which are now up for deletion, and no significant coverage on her at all (none at all really). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well she obviously doesn't have the notability of Osamu Tezuka but, on Anime Network, one of her manga appeared twice in the top 10 and once at the 13th position in the Japanese Comic Ranking: 1 2 3. Additionally, the article is not just about one manga but a series of 7 volumes that have been released over two years so it can potentially be expanded and improved. Laurent (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sale ranks has already been rejected by WP:BK a few weeks ago. But also, that is a different manga series. The notability of one manga series does not transfer to all other manga series by the same author. But I didn't cite Osamu Tezuka just for his notability. I cited him because if his historical influences on both anime and manga. --Farix (Talk) 21:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seem to received very little buzz at all. Definitely no reliable sources. In fact, the number of GHits are not impressive at all.[6][7] --Farix (Talk) 02:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 4,760 hits for "フィールドの王子さま" seems impressive enough to me. This is clearly a notable manga, from a notable creator, who has published several at least seven volumes in books and DVD comic collections formats. Dream Focus 14:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 4,000? I only came up with just over 1,000 under the Kanji name. That's nothing. Even removing the two exclamation marks didn't increase the number of GHits. But the number of GHits is meaningless unless they come up with significant coverage by reliable sources. --Farix (Talk) 02:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Keep in mind that Google hits do not demonstrate notability. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can someone who speaks Japanese look at the Japanese wikipedia? I think there is a translation error using Google. [8] It says that the 5th book "Premium Edition (Digital Comic Memorial topped 100 million copies with a DVD)". I don't think it would've sold a 100 million copies. Dream Focus 14:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed this too, but whatever it says there's no source for it so we can't use it. I've also searched for "million" and "get love" in Japanese on Google but couldn't find anything. Somebody with some knowledge of Japanese could probably help here. Laurent (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not taking any position here but i can answer the number issue. The number is in tens thousand unit (10K) google can translate but can't do unit conversion. --KrebMarkt 17:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Babelfish translates it as: "The sale broke 1,500,000 section at 7th volume sale point in time" --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:44, 26 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 09:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BK and WP:N. There's no reliable sources showing how it is notable in the real world. The article is nothing but a card catalog directory. Them From Space 16:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage. Non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barely any 3rd party coverage, nothing that would demonstrate that it is notable per WP:BK or WP:N. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:39, 26 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 09:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jukes

This BLP on a minor blogger/author does not have any independent sources that discuss this person. Fails WP:BIO Bali ultimate (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This AfD appears to be motivated by the user's actions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Motley Moose, which is unacceptable if true. Otherwise, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0432133/ shows plenty of sources, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2D7153DF931A35751C1A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 is from the New York Times, a quick Google search shows that same source is referenced on a dozen .edu sites in the first thirty results. I think the citations need cleaning up, which would be the only problem I see here, which isn't the article's fault, as it would be slightly COI for the author's namesake to edit an article on himself. Ks64q2 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's unacceptable is attacking the motives of other editors (and without a shred of evidence to back it up). I'd never heard of Peter Jukes until today. My reasons for the nomination are clear in my nomination (fails BIO). Please, discuss content and not other editors unless you have a good reason to do so (and evidence to back it up). You're growing increasingly uncivil and this will not prove helpful to you, me or wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, sir; please allow me to correct myself. I didn't look deeply enough to see you had created this AfD; I am certain your reasoning is on the level. Perhaps you could concede, however, that it would be possible for this nomination to appear to be motivated to that argument, especially considering there's two admins who edited this article when the last AfD on The Motley Moose came up, and both thought it was reasonably notable for inclusion. Maybe it would have been more prudent to wait until that had played itself out. Though I would also suggest a subjective opinion on whether or not you had heard of this article's subject is hardly an acceptable reason for submitting this article for AfD. Again, a quick Google search pointed the results I showed above; perhaps "Cleanup" would have been more appropriate. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Ks64q2: "a subjective opinion on whether or not you had heard of this article's subject is hardly an acceptable reason for submitting this article for AfD." Of course it isn't. I wrote "I'd never heard of Peter Jukes until today" in response to your allegation that my nomination "appears to be motivated by the user's actions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Motley Moose, which is unacceptable if true." I don't know Jukes and have no opinion on him or his work, or any relationship that would "motivate" me to nominate this BLP for any other reason than this: I believe it falls short of wikipedia's standards for biographies of living persons, notability and verifiability largely because there are insufficient reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article. Now, I suggest you drop the attacks on my or anyone elses motives. Keep it on the content and keep your suppositions about what's in other people's heads to yourself.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although John Berger's and the New Yorker's critical coverage of Jukes' work is as yet uncited, I'm going to assume good faith on these. What's more, his extensive writing work in stage, screen and prose -- including the Laurence Olivier Awards winning Matador -- more than satisfies WP:CREATIVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going through the sources, I see only self-published material by Jukes. To pass inclusion criteria, according to WP:NOTE, subjects need to "receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."--Sloane (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Keep: I think he just crosses the threshold for inclusion, his work for tv seems to be relatively extensive (although there's very little coverage that exists of it) and his book probably has gotten enough reviews (we've only found a couple, but I suspect there's more on paper).--Sloane (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply WP:BIO states that individuals can be notable on the basis on additional criteria, even in cases where basic notability criteria is missing. Jukes' is a perfect example of this: he has won awards for his theatrical work and has extensive television writing credits. The New Yorker and John Berger reviews of his non-fiction work need to be found, to be sure, but it would be a mistake to delete an article on such an apparently prominent writer. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The winner of the award turns out to be not the play or Jukes himself, but the choreographer of the play. So this isn't an argument for inclusion.--Sloane (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Have you removed all his TV writing credits? Why? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Unsourced. They're at the talk page.--Sloane (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        ... and rather easily sourced, which I've done for 2 of the main BBC creds. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ~~Sloane~~/nom. Eusebeus (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Come on, people—the first three references clearly show the guy's a screenwriter for rather notable Inspector Lynley Mysteries, Waking the Dead, and Sea of Souls at the BBC. This nomination is disruptive, though I'm sure it was an honest mistake.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt everyone with a few writing credits on tv, but no awards or non-trivial independent coverage about him is notable? That's not how i see it.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, that's not "a few writing credits on TV". That's three major primetime TV writing credits in flagship programmes ~~so far this year~~.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think some are older credits. I just found a ref to a 2008 BBC radio play her wrote. I'm adding it. I believe part of the problem has been the zeal with which other editors have deleted prominent Tv and radio writing credits, instead of making the slightest attempt to reference them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, "so far this year?" I'm not sure it will impact your opinion, but the article now has one writing credit for one episode from 2006 [9], one writing credit for one episode in 2001 [10] and one writing credit for one episode in 2004 [11]. There is no discussion about the quality, or impact etc... of these three episodes, just notations at the beeb that he wrote them.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Writing a couple of episodes for television series doesn't seem enough for inclusion. So far, all we have is the one book review from the Journal Of Sociology. And one source really isn't enough.--Sloane (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - he's written multiple episodes and radio projects for the BBC, some of which I've just added. On the basis of his multiple scripts for top BBC series, I believe he easily meets the WP:CREATIVE criteria for having "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Bali ultimate is correct: I mis-read that. Nevertheless, I find multiple citations as a writer for the BBC rather convincing; and these are quality prime-time programmes. It's not like he wrote a couple of episodes of soaps.

Another point I should make is that notability is a guideline. It's not a debate-winning trump card, particularly when there are policy-based reasons not to delete well-cited material from Wikipedia—as has already happened here, in blatant contravention of policy, in what I can only characterise as an overenthusiastic move on someone's part. Deleting the article would be an even more flagrant abuse.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Writing a couple episodes is not the same as "creating" or "co-creating" a series. We are also still lacking in any reliable sources about his involvement in these series. All we have are credits at the BBC website.--Sloane (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the BBC isn't a reliable source to establish who writes for the BBC?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I 'm saying that it isn't enough to warrant inclusion. There's no reliable source attesting that this person had a major impact on the series.--Sloane (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I get that, and I'd tend to agree. That warrants further investigation.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further investigation Jukes wrote the first two hour episode Waking the Dead which garnered a 43% share of the UK audience and guaranteed recommission. The series went on to win Emmy awards and has been broadcast in many countries including the US. Also sole creator of UK prime time three-season show In Deep also with international credits. And was one of two writers on a Bafta award winning show Sea of Souls. Inspector Lynley Mysteries likewise. Film length 90 minute episodes to close season 5 and open season six, and this was the first time the show stopped being based on the Elizabeth George novel. Extensive other TV credits.

Don't know about the books and essays or blogs but I know my TV and have seen several of his shows both in US and overseas. Not a minor episodic writer. Lots of research and cross referencing later I can say without a problem Keep --Moloch09 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Book and author are notable [12]. Screenwriting a few episodes here and there and contributing articles now and again isn't enough to establish notability, but it adds to the already substantial notability in this case. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject meets notability requirements. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], (Gnews). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Major Inclusion of Sources Alright folks... rather than spam the thread... I've done some rather exhausting research; I'll post it at the "Discussion" page, since I'm not so good at making those nifty dropdown menus yet. Head over there for all the references we could possibly need. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources i see here are en passant, don't establish anything about this guys notability. No no non-trivial coverage, etc (and one of them is talking about guys in the restaurant business, and has a passant mention of a "peter jukes" who owns a restaurant. Same guy? Unclear, at best. Even if so, so what?)Bali ultimate (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the restaurant guy is someone else. But the article now has non-trivial coverage of Jukes' work including Washington Times and Boston Globe reviews, and more. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Sources Now Up

And it's an extensive list... if anyone has any problems with it, let me know. It took me over an hour and judicious use of Babelfish. Phew. The things I do for Wikipedia... Ks64q2 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it's mostly garbage. Responded on talk.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Bali: "And it's mostly garbage" is a bit on the unpleasant side. There's no need for that, and particularly after this has already gone to WQA and AN/I.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I do plan to add About Slavery to his radio work section. Hey, but what's up with the New Yorker? I've been searching in vain for this one. But when I click on your link it takes me to something else entirely. Are you sure you've got the link right? thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, got it in the talk tab, too. http://archives.newyorker.com/?i=1990-08-27#folio=094 Ks64q2 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unfortunately there does seem to be a connection to this AfD and the acrimony at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Motley Moose. If there is more of this i suggest a report at ANI to get more eyes on this. -- Banjeboi 06:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I avoid political articles and do not want to get into Motley Moose debate, but tracking back nominator timestamps it seems the speedy delete for this came as a direct result of a visit there. I'm sure Bali ultimate has no bad intentions but it looks like an attempt at reverse wikilayering. Notability cannot be inherited but it shouldn't be disinherited either. --Moloch09 (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources establish notability (e.g. the Journal of Sociology and the Boston Globe book reviews), TV credits are a good bonus, mentions in newspapers like El Pais are in themselves often "in passing" but give an indication of his notability as well. I suppose that the Scottish chef Peter Jukes is unrelated though? Fram (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's a different Peter Jukes, it seems. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we close this AfD now? Even the "delete" votes seem to have changed their minds. Thanks. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, let the last delete flip or the rest can play out for the next few days. -- Banjeboi 10:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course youre right bonejboi but the remaining delete from Eusebeus is cited 'as per Sloan' who has just flipped. Meanwhile I'll try to plug in any interesting sources from the stuff you've ported over to the article talk. Thanks --Moloch09 (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read through the article concerned, the discussion and the AFD here. From the article, the Editors comments above and the references, to me it is beyond doubt that Peter Jukes passes any notability threshold that Wiki may have. Personal Note: I'm an Inspector Lynley fan, have seen Peter Jukes on the credits couple of times. --Louisprandtl (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Hyperlink Problem Ref [31] here [[18]] links to a Review on MadMen [19]in San Francisco Chronicle instead to Jerome's article at MyDD [20]. The hyperlink needs to be fixed. --Louisprandtl (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination ~~and Sloane.~~ X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sloane has reverted to keep so which is it?--Moloch09 (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn his treacherous hide! Obviously per nom. X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the nom no longer even remotely describes the rewritten state of the article, which is now richly sourced. Have you looked at it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has enough reliable sources to show notability. I could do without Refs 33 and 35, which are blog links to MyDD and MotleyMoose, respectively, that in my view are not reliable sources, but there are enough other references that are good to justify keeping. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring link because Sloane objected to lack of sourcing for Peter Jukes username 'Brit' writing for Moose - although he states so in prospect. Web Page tagged with his real name. --Moloch09 (talk) 22:23, 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 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Alberto Cristofani della Magione

Article is without reliable, secondary sources about the topic. He doesn't seem to have any WP:Notability. --Yopie 12:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also: Italian AfD. AntiCross (talk) 01:37, 20 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 00:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references that establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 02:35, 22 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) 03:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tier 1 Group

This has been a problematic orphaned article for quite some time, and currently looks like a sales brochure. However even if you look at the last good version there are only three references, and two of them are very light on content indeed. Searching through the Internet it becomes apparent that this article is unlikely to meet the notability guidelines outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and so I propose that it is deleted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clean up and cite. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored a superior version of the article including sources like this one [21] that clearly indicate notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Child of Midnight, the news articles indicate, in my opinion, notability. Acebulf (talk) 23:43, 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 00:10, 22 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 00:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sudesh sivarasu

COI article. Strongest of the weak notability assertions is "he has design a high flexion artificial knee using 3-D reconstruction technqiues and work gained acceptance and recognition worldwid" Dweller (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF Salih (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:PROF, the article's peacock terms, poor writing and Geogre's law problems aside, it clearly fails WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An impressive career that does not meet guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation impact seems to be very low. Another law, could be called peacock's law: the extent to which peacock terms are used is inversely correlated with the extent to which notability criteria are met.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:24, 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 keep. Although this would have very likely ended in a WP:SNOW keep, the nominator has withdrawn the AfD. - auburnpilot talk 01:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

Many bolp violations, pov fork, content is not encyclopedia material, most of the content is OR and not notable. This article clearly violate bolp and npov. From BOLP "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all." About half of the sources used fall under that category, (media matters is by far the most used source) and many of the rest are manipulated by the original editor to reflect their opinions, a violation of WP:OR. Even disregarding the unacceptable sources most of the sections do not belong in a encyclopedia. On bolp noticeboard all editors that were uninvolved agreed with my claims. Past discussions on the topic had similar results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive55#Criticism_of_Bill_O.27Reilly. - Fru23 (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a bad-faith nomination by a single-purpose-account editor who is pushing a one-man crusade against consensus and who has twice been blocked [22] for edit-warring on the subject in the one month (as of today) that he has been on wikipedia. The BLP argument is bogus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please look at the BOLP noticeboard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive55#Criticism_of_Bill_O.27Reilly The editors of the article were the only people who disagreed with me. EVERYONE else thought the article pov pushing/poorly sourced and should deleted. Fru23 (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete BOLP Fru23 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and perhaps even speedy keep. Bugs is correct that the nominator here is not interested in collaborating or reaching consensus, just getting his own way. This article has gone through FIVE previous AfDs, not three, and it has survived each one before. At what point does yet another nomination just become unnecessary disruption? On the merits, the article is not perfect, but it is exhaustively sourced and edited by a diverse group of individuals who are, by and large, not pursuing any agenda other than improving the encyclopedia. Objections to the quality of the sources is a cleanup argument, not a deletion argument. Croctotheface (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)::[reply]

Comment And ever time it is the articles own editors pushing it through. If you are going to allow super partisan source like media matters in Bios, wikipedia will soon have a lot more worthless articles filled with inane criticism. Fru23 (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand that I am supposed to comment on the content and not the contributor. However, I feel the contributor in this particular instance taints the entire process. Fru23 has been on an endless crusade against this article and others related to the subject by claiming violations of WP:BLP and poor sourcing. However, Fru23 has resorted to outright lies in defense of his position, claiming that proper reliable sources do not exist [23], when if fact they do . Fru23 has also deleted sourced information by falsely claiming the info is not in the source. [24] [25] [26]. Most damning is his abject refusal to engage in actual discussion to improve the articles rather than constant wikilawyering-- this AfD being the last in a long line of attempt to push a POV. There may be several problems in the current form of the article. However, I would prefer to allow responsible editors to hash out their differences to present an improved article, rather than have it deleted it because of the work of a POV pusher. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a bad faith nomination. Nominator has a clear history of pushing an agenda and no constructive contributions. Also note he appears to have "!voted" twice. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Assume good faith, stop attacking me, everyone who has voted so far is an editor of the article. Fru23 (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That could be construed as a bad-faith, personal attack. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As well as untrue. Clearly the reason "only editors" have responded so far is because the article is on our collective watch lists, and you have failed to properly template on the AfD page. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reading the associated discussion pages, this is clearly a nomination that fails to bring up any new points in comparison to the previous AFDs. Consensus can change, but not if you just bring up the same argument over and over. All the previous discussion has affirmed time and again that the rationale used by the nominator doesn't cut it. The article as a whole is an extremely notable and valuable topic for readers, with plenty of reliable source material to draw from. If there are particulars of the article you don't feel meet the requirements of BLP, then work with others to fix them. But deletion of a vital treatment of a media pundit's place in the public sphere is not a solution. Steven Walling (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KeepRehashing proven wrong arguments, Bad-Faith nomination. Fru has admitted somewhere that his/her entire goal is to delete the article one way or another, be it slow censorship, BloP noticeboard, or AfD (I don't know where the exact diff is), this is just more forum shopping. Fru23 has also previously admitted to being a employee of Bill O'reilly on IRC (although Fru23 Retracted it, but looking at the contributions of Fru, I don't see any notable differences in actions)) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, POV forks are allowed if the content was significantly long on the main page, and the main page (Bill O'reilly) has a balanced view, as does the criticism page having a balanced coverage of biased views. I've stated this again and again to Fru23, as have others. He just refuses to Get the point. Copied from previous discussion:

Wikipedia:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements

Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles

Wikipedia:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a POV

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Criticism and praise (Note: See the content forking policy as to why the article on criticism exists, a NPOV summary is on the main BOR page (or should be))
ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More apologies for focusing on the contributor, however these edits [27] [28] lay out in a clear fashion the kind of POV warrior Fru23 is. Please end this farce with a speedy keep. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that Fru23's attacking of Media Matters is funny given how the Presidential Transition team has cited Media Matters. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He just erased "I HATE POV PUSHERS" from his page, apparently in the mistaken belief that he could hide his agenda from scrutiny. [29] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right I was wrong, apparently sources like mediamatters and newsbusters are allowed. I retract my afd. Fru23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Having read all of the comments above, and Fru23's ill-tempered responses, the case for this being a bad faith nomination is convincing. Yet another edit-warrior we do not need. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Nominator has withdrawn nomination. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Icewedge (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Sullivan (mayor)

not notable and easily confused with others by the same name Gang14 (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have the modifier to avoid mix-ups. What do you think makes this person not notable? Just claiming he is, isn't a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A mayor of a large (or at least well-known) city who has at least one notable achievement and has received media coverage...how exactly is he not notable? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an adequate potential for reliable, independent sources. Going to Google and Google News, there were certainly adequate sources upon which the article could draw. Also, the subject meets the standard set at WP:POLITICIAN. Jd027^talk 21:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I'm confused as to why "easily confused with other by the same name" is included. Does that mean that if the man's name was "Clancy Knickerbocker," he would somehow be more suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? No. Easy confusion by others with the same name is not a criterion for deletion, has never been, and will never be. A very poor AfD entry, indeed. Jd027^talk 21:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is a mayor and this will be updated in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlumdogAramis (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mayor of a significant city easily meets WP:POLITICIAN. Current stub needs work but plenty of sources show up in Google. Rklear (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN and well-covered.7triton7 (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Weak Delete~~ The original deletion request was made by someone who was blanket proposing deletion of minor mayors of minor cities. At the time, I opposed the deletion, but after further research, it appears that all the notable things Michael J Sullivan ever did were all done by different Michael J Sullivans. If WP:POLITICIAN implies that all mayors of all cities should have Wikipedia articles, we have a long way to go to write a lot of articles that don't say much at all, but in that case, I can't support the deletion of this particular article. Additionally, I understand WP:PAPER. CSZero (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I'm saying is Wikipedia has a tendency to focus very heavily on current events. There is nothing particularly notable about this particular mayor of Lawrence. Would it be correct to create stub articles for all mayors going back 150 years? CSZero (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would. The careers of political leaders are an essential part of world history, and a great deal of the history of Lawrence can be discerned through its mayors. It's a basic function of an encyclopedia to try to be comprehensive; an encyclopedia, after all, is a place where people look for things they can't find easily. It's why we have articles on people like Julius Saturninus, a purported Roman emperor about whom we may never know much other than that his troops controlled three provinces for a couple of months. A set of stubs, or even a list of Lawrence mayors with proper redlinks, would give people a start on filling in that history, letting them know what came before Michael J. Sullivan. Rklear (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Back when this issue first came up in early February last year, WP:POLITICIAN didn't explicitly say Mayors are generally notable (See the last revisions from January). It stopped with "a local politician is notable if he is well-covered in various journals." Which, of course, is subjective. He's in the Lowell, Massachusetts newspaper this week because his family is offering a reward for info on whoever fired a gun through a city hall window in the past month. That's not encyclopedia-level type of stuff in my opinion. But, since WP:POLITICIAN is clearer than it used to be about mayors in particular, I'll change my vote to *keep* CSZero (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so, please strike through your Weak delete vote above and change to keep, to make things clearer for the closing admin. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mayor of a reasonably large city (pop. ~73,000) that therefore meets WP:POLITICIAN. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SGIS

This organization does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for "Notability" as stated on [[30]]. Speedy deletion has been proposed before on this article, but was declined because an individual indicated that this page met "Notability" criteria because it had a published article in Entrepreneur naming the company featured on this page as a fast growing corporation. Notability criteria, however, requires that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." This article falls into the latter. Furthermore, the criteria requires that, for the source being cited: "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." The vast majority of the sources cited refer to both primary and secondary sources that have an extremely narrow and highly industry-specific audience. Finally, when considering whether or not "demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" exist substantially, the only possibility would be on the national economy, as this company is described as a national company. However, a gross revenue of $86 million is arguably insignificant to the national economy and, since the company is privately held, information on revenues generated in taxes, profit, losses, assets, etc. is not publically verifiable. RJSampson (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks large enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's completely single-sourced, and therefore fails notabiltiy. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spammy advertisement with no indication of notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:ORG - the references are largely trivial or stuff the company has published itself Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to this talk: "Furthermore, the criteria requires that, for the source being cited: "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." The vast majority of the sources cited refer to both primary and secondary sources that have an extremely narrow and highly industry-specific audience."

How is Entrepreneur Magazine narrow and industry-specific? Magazine Publishers of America rates Entrepreneur extremely well as a national business publication, even their website is listed among the top ten websites belonging to a national magazine: http://www.magazine.org/DIGITAL/22508.aspx. Furthermore, Inc. magazine is also cited - another well reviewed national publication, as well industry publications and national publications such as Business Journals. -- Chelsea2007a (talk) 11:50, 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 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SkillStorm

This organization does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for "Notability" as stated on [[31]]. Speedy deletion has been proposed before on this article, but was declined because an individual indicated that this page met "Notability" criteria because it had a published article in Entrepreneur naming the company featured on this page as a fast growing corporation. Notability criteria, however, requires that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." This article falls into the latter. Furthermore, the criteria requires that, for the source being cited: "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." The vast majority of the sources cited refer to both primary and secondary sources that have an extremely narrow and highly industry-specific audience. Finally, when considering whether or not "demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" exist substantially, the only possibility would be on the national economy, as this company is described as a national company. However, a gross revenue of $20 million is arguably insignificant to the national economy and, since the company is privately held, information on revenues generated in taxes, etc. is not publically verifiable. RJSampson (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to warrant inclusion. Also a spammy advertisement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "Solutions" and "Services" sections are advertisement. A voluminous list does nothing to add to the notability of the company.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Funny thing is, now that the spammy sections are gone, the article entry is mostly a list of other articles on the web, not very encyclopedic. Perhaps if somebody could generate notable text from those other articles, then can this article stay. --Emana (Talk) 06:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Emana about it being a list of other articles on the web, but I think with a little rewriting the page is a good contribution. I've rewritten the section where it listed the awards and deleted some of the items listed in the news section. Adiaza2181 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- With some small work done to make it read more encyclopedic, I believe this company is noteworthy enough to keep this article/contribution. Smarie180 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The references provided don't really provide evidence of notability which isbeing the subject of a non-trivial third party source. A couple are blurbs that support some minor fact in the article, but don't clearly demonstrate notability. Spammy but that can be helped if references and sources were there. At this point, they aren't. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 02:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After reading this I think it should stay. Looks good to me and sounds like a notable company in South Florida.Dtpapers (talk) 18:35, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 06:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Daines

I have placed an AFD/nomination for deletion for this article. I have placed this AFD because the article seems to be an advertisement for Steve Daines '04. Besides being badly dated, the article is loaded with phrases "life-long Montanan,etc". V. Joe (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a candidate of a major party for a senior state office he meets notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts Looks like it may meet G11 because it needs a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. However, he is clearly notable. So I'd say I'm neutral between deletion without prejudice as to recreation and keep but rewrite. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. Being a candidate for office is not enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, actually, according to our notability guidelines, at that level it is. Guidelines aren't set in stone and aren't policy, but they do at least provide a basis for debate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When he gets the Lieutenant Governor position, it may be reconsidered. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly fulfills the third criterion of WP:POLITICIAN: "Major figures in national or first-level sub-national political races." A major party nominee for statewide office qualifies. Ray^Talk 02:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Every nominee in every election for every statewide office in every state is notable? Qqqqqq (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 02:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely running for a statewide office does not establish notability. Qqqqqq (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability guidelines, could use some decent refs though. riffic (talk) 09:41, 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 deletion. Speedy deletion per G11 - advertising. Mikeblas (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Studio moonspell

Blatant self promotion. Original contributor has twice removed speedy delete tag rather than using hangon and explaining reasons for keeping. Article is not encyclopedic, and company is not notable. Dmol (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Blatant self-promotion by a non-consumer business, with absolutely no showing of minimal importance: Studio Moonspell have helped tuned many companies’ and retail stores’ branding and visual communication to the right tracks via our solutions that involve delicate Coporate Identity Designing (CID). - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:52, 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 copyvio and nn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Olivier

Contested prod. This musician is not notable, and this article is simply promotion Closedmouth (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete on grounds of blatant copyvio alone. This entire "article" is a copy/paste from http://www.myspace.com/daleoliviermusic Voceditenore (talk) 15:18, 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 04:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Marr

Unnotable person, MP's assistant and Student officer and had one story over a year ago Bacchus87 (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's all very well but it is quite a funny article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.193.100 (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting WP:BIO --Boston (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:52, 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 keep. No consensus to delete but I've added tags for the problems mentioned in this discussion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teen sitcom

Filled with original research, POV and large sections that aren't actually about sitcoms. If all these were cut, you'd have no article left to improve. Therefore I recommend deletion Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree! The article actually does have good content if you really read through it rather than just skimping through it. It mentions the history of the teen sitcoms, some of the first ones, and a description on what a teen sitcom is. And besides, there is an article on teen dramas, why not there be an article on teen sitcoms. I say keep the article --Mr. Comedian (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research means someone put in personal opinions or drew illogical conclusions. Without reliable sources, it's impossible to tell which, if any, of the material is good. I'm not arguing that teen sitcoms shouldn't have an article. I'm arguing this isn't the article we should have because it violates policies. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I understand what you are saying, even though I do feel that the article's content is accurate. anyway, why not just edit it with reliable sources? --Mr. Comedian (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Obviously notable subject. All unreferenced articles are by definition OR. No big deal. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is really no need to delete it, and even though it has no original research, whoever created the article didn't seem to use personel opinions, instead he or she seemed to use common sense. The article does not have any wrong material in it anyway, so why not just find some stuff to back the article up. --Mr. Comedian (talk) 10:52, 20 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 00:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. It's about a notable subject and keeping this version doesn't hurt anybody. That being said, it should be cited, cleaned up, and expanded. Them From Space 01:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since Google Books and Google News searches indicate that this is a term that's in actual use. Now, Comedian's comments on the content of the article are either wishful thinking or something else: the article IS entirely OR, without a single reference, and all of its needs to be cut or at least cropped. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 22 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 04:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinda national football team

No evidence team exists Stu.W UK (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a country sub-division can't have a national team. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Of course it can. Nation can refer to a country, or a group of people. For example, Canada recognizes Quebec as a nation; Quebec has a national assembly, national archives, a national holiday - and if it had a provincial soccer team it would be a national football team. That doesn't make this team notable though - it just invalidates your delete reason. Of course Wales is another excellent example. Nfitz (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found. It is not a member of the Nouvelle Fédération-Board, which regulates national teams like Zanzibar, Kurdistan etc which are not independenent countries but organize national teams. I can't find any sources that attest to existence. Just to correct you Cambridge, Cabinda is more than a subdivision, it was the site of a secessionist movemenet for decades. Think of it like more like Kurdistan--TM 13:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources. This would probably be a worthwhile article if sources could be found, but currently there's no evidence it even exists. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nunavut national football team. Giant Snowman 17:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence team actually exists -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 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 04:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Schultz

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/It's Yoga

These articles on a Yoga teacher and it's school are listed here together per a deletion review to take account of a confusion between the two previous separate AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Yoga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Schultz, and to allow for assessment of the sources brought up late in the AfD on It's Yoga. Tikiwont (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominated articles are:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I am not greatly impressed by the references. I would prefer to see the articles deleted until a non-SPA writes about them. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both COI - Way too promotional. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bothThe references dont mean much. Yoga Journal, which I subscribe to, tries to feature the various studios and give best practices but would not count as an external media reference. The journal itself has lots of cross over COI between articles, ads, and writers. Both entries are way too promotional for wiki.--Jayrav (talk) 01:54, 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 merge to Rachel Corrie#Reactions. MBisanz ^talk 06:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie

I know I'm going to get it for this but in short, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Rachel Corrie is notable, some of the tributes to her are notable, but anything more than a few paragraphs like at Rachel_Corrie#Artistic_tributes seems excessive. Not every tribute nor is the concept of tributes to her notable. I see that Talk:Rachel Corrie has some discussion about this split but I really don't see the need for this article at all, not even a merge. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Keep Actually, I think a merge or at least a redirect with the option to merge is appropriate. This is not the same material that was supposedly split. The article was significantly expanded since its creation and could well contain notable tributes that do need to be discussed in the main article. Only experts editors would know and they should have the option.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote in accordance with the comments below. It's summary style and not POV, since there's no reasonable opposite POV to be shown. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep The current artistic tributes section in the main Rachel Corrie article is about the right size and weight for that article. In accordance with WP:Summary style it is entirely appropriate for fuller details to be given in a separate article, so as not to overwhelm the main article. This article could obviously do with some clean up, but there is plenty of notable material that deserves to be kept. --NSH001 (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After long debates in the main article page on Rachel Corrie the dedicated editors agreed on separate page creation since the article doesn't have much space on artistic tributes, and if we add everything to the main page either it gets too long or we cannot go in detail about events. For example if we add the table to the main page it would lengthen an already long article. By the way if you somehow try to delete the page warn me beforehand because the page consists of weeks of hard work. I agree on the page is still not fully complete, I could use some help on cleanup the article and paraphrasing yet I did near all the effort in page and it took a great while to gather all information needed for the page. The artists in the artistic tribute page consists of 2 types, world famous musicians like Patti Smith, Billy Bragg, Mike Stout, Klimt 1918, Ten Foot Pole and rest some not so famous worldwide but notable musicians like The Zachary Jones Band, The Gram Partisans, Agnese Ginocchio, Stephanie Lee. I listened near all the tracks mentioned in the article and their work is world class notable I can say as mentioned in wiki guidelines, notability referred in wiki is about the quality of the work. Kasaalan (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for that. Overall, I simply don't think the range of depictions of her are generally notable. Yes, each individual reference to her may qualify under a reliable source but this starts to look almost like a trivia section (this link to iTunes music store search for "Rachel Corrie" being an example) than a discussion of what she symbolizes, what she represents, why artists use her as a muse (which is what an article about the tributes to her should be in my opinion). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all itunes search reference is used to show the track lengths, mostly and as a side reference except for 1 track. Secondly yes you are true, the page should be more about why the musicians devoted their songs to Rachel Corrie. Yet I worked for the page alone for the most part so if you like to add that info all the necessary reference already provided by me in the references section. If you really read the interviews, and artist pages you can easily add that info to the article. The hardest part was compiling the table because no such table is available on the internet yet, so it took weeks of research. But as a side note I should comment I have listened near all the tracks in the table and the lyrics already show why the artists made a song about Rachel Corrie. Just read the lyrics you will easily understand. Also before nominating the article for deletion this swiftly, you could try adding info necessary into it. I made calls for help in a lot of pages, yet no user helped much to the article yet. But before helping improving the article you nominate it to deletion and why I cannot understand fully. Kasaalan (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trying to figure out possible categories for this article, I note that while there are no other artistic tributes pages, there are three pages for artistic depictions (List of artistic depictions of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Artistic depictions of the Bengali Language Movement, Artistic depictions of the partition of India) if people are interested in a general view of how things are done. If kept, discussion as to article title may be appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Just read Ford Mustang article you can see it is divided into First-generation Ford Mustang, Second-generation Ford Mustang, Third-generation Ford Mustang, Fourth-generation Ford Mustang, Fifth-generation Ford Mustang
- Look at Ludwig van Beethoven separated into Beethoven's musical style and innovations, Beethoven and C minor, List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven, Death of Ludwig van Beethoven
- I also found a The Beatles Tributes, List of artistic depictions of and related to Pride and Prejudice, Artistic depictions of Bangladesh Liberation War, List of artistic depictions of Beowulf, List of artistic depictions of Grendel, List of artistic depictions of Grendel's mother pages
- At the time being there was a consensus on the page so I created the page instead adding into the main article. Kasaalan (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and push this back to the main page; complaints about length betray an inability to employ summary style. Eusebeus (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary style is not the same as shoving all material in one article. It's guidelines specifically mention spin-offs for space reasons as a possible option. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NPOV-violating fork. This should be part of a balanced presentation in the main article. Or it should be part of an article like "Public reaction to the Rachel Corrie incident." As constructed it is too one-sided. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how the article violating Neutral point of view I couldn't understand. But we can join the article into a Reactions to Rachel Corrie Case because there are political reactions, documentaries made about Corrie Case, Artistic Tributes and so on. But if your vote is on merging maybe you should refer it as Merge instead Delete. Kasaalan (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the next two comments indicate, this article is "gerrymandered" so it can only present one side or aspect of a very controversial subject. It is the only "artistic tributes" article in Wikipedia. I think that it actually fails the general notability guideline as well -- while some of the individual songs/works may be notable, there are no reliable independent third party sources cited that treat the general subject as notable. To simplify the issue -- Maxwell's Silver Hammer is a notable Beatles song. But "Songs about silver hammers" is not a notable subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, what would be the "other side" of the article in question--artistic tributes to the guy who ran her over? Songs panning her activism? Both positive and negative reviews of the tribute songs? I can see the argument for including this material as a section in the main Rachel Corrie article, but if Kasaalan put weeks of work into researching it, frankly I'd hate to see that go to waste. I'm sure "the amount of work the editor put into it" is not an official Wikipedia notability criterion, but... call me an inclusionist then. AdRock (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Kaslaan, and I can't see how possible it would be a NPOV, what would the other side of the story be, could it be songs insulting Rachel Corrie?!! Yamanam (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if there would be some songs or plays against Rachel Corrie it would also be an artistic tribute so we could add them yet there is none as far as I know. Kasaalan (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could be easily be summarized and covered in the existing Rachel Corrie article. SJSA 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely notable, and too long for inclusion in the main article. untwirl(talk) 02:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Similar to what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz said, merge this content along with Rachel Corrie#Reactions into a new article with a name with a name similar to Public Reaction to the Death of Rachel Corrie. CopaceticThought (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge per CopaceticThought into a new article named [[Public Reaction to the Death of Rachel Corrie. It can include "Official reactions", "Criticisms" and "Artistic Tributes", amon other sections. For disclosure, I was asked to participate in this discussion by Kasaalan. Tiamut^talk 12:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rachel Corrie. No need for additional FORKs. THF (talk) 17:58, 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 00:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bougainville national football team

AfDs for this article:

No evidence this team exists. The link provided suggests there may be an association, but not a national team. I can find no evidence of any results in any competition. Article has been deleted before but as this was several years ago an AfD seemed more appropriate.Stu.W UK (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lot of the arguments presented at the recent Nunavut national team AfD will apply here. I think the FAQ at national-football-teams.com sum it up rather well - "Territories are also not included when they haven′t actually played for a long time - or never at all. As soon as Bougainville, the Easter Island, Guangxi Zhuang, the Isles of Scilly or Chechnya show signs of activity, we′ll think about including them." Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to lack substantial coverage in reliable sources. - fchd (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bettia. Giant Snowman 12:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a country sub-division can't have a national team. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a country, can't have a national footy team. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. However, just for information, Palestine is not a country and has a national football team (and Olympic Association). Parslad (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence team actually exists -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 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 02:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kole Black

Doesn't look anywhere near notable enough as an author, but I cannot tell if there's enough notability is a subgenre to allow it here. The only interview I can find is here which links to Lulu, a self-publisher (although the books are available on Amazon). And yes, the MySpace page claims he's 100 from Tokyo, Japan but that's the page linked from the interview so I don't think it's a hoax. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've redirected The Chance She Took and The Risk of Chance to Black's page, in the odd chance they somehow are found to have notability on their own. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment popular, I see. Note that some new editors have been removing a large amount of, albeit unsourced, material from the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:07, 21 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, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spaulden Publishing appears to be Kole Black's own publishing label, as no other books seem to be published under this label. Self-published books are not notable unless they are widely distributed or otherwise grab the attention of third-party sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:13, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Realty Executives International

Non-notable company. Page has existed without references for a long time. Sleepy2222 (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sufficient independent reliable sources can be found that establish notability.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google News Archive yields a fair number of hits, but the vast majority of them in the first four or five pages I looked at were either routine announcements of hirings or office openings, similar copies of press releases, judicial opinions from litigation they were involved in, or employees of the business interviewed about general real estate issues. I found nothing in a general interest publication that was specifically about this business in the results I bothered looking at. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to establish notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:38, 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 speedy keep. Several of the nominated articles have literally just finished their AfDs. No predjudice to separate renomination of the others, but I suggest a pause for reflection before taking further action Fritzpoll (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Allen

I am also nominating the following related pages:

All lack notability outside of American Idol. Danny Gokey is under nomination, and Alexis Grace has already been deleted per this reason. These articles are the same as the ones listed here, and as such should get the same fate. Ejfetters (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suggest that you withdraw this nomination and nominate them sepperately. Some of them, like Jackie Tohn, would probably pass wikipedia's notability requirements. Others probably would not.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Michael Sarver (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sarver (2nd nomination)), Jasmine Murray (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Murray) and Lil Rounds (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil Rounds) all had AfD's that were closed as Keep just today. Jorge Nunez (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Nuñez (singer)) had an AfD that was closed as No consensus just today. Scott MacIntyre (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott MacIntyre) has an AfD that was closed as Keep yesterday, less than twelve hours ago. Aspects (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Anoop Desai, Matt Giraud, Allison Iraheta, Megan Joy and Adam Lambert. Articles pass criteria #1 and #9 of WP:MUSICBIO, thereby passing WP:BIO. Aspects (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Von Smith and Jackie Tohn. These two had articles and notability before they were involved in American Idol, so the added notability of being on American Idol makes an even stronger case for their articles to stay. Aspects (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have struck the Jasmine Murray article from this AFD. A seperate AFD for that article was closed today as keep. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 08:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Von Smith and Jackie Tohn. per Aspects. Smith has a long-standing and notable following from his internet YouTube postings, appearances on other television programs besides American Idol, such as on The View and a recording contract. Tohn's notability has been established with television and film roles. I agree with Inmysolitude, that a blanket grouping for deletion like this is probably inappropriate given the variation in notability and prior recent nominations of some articles that passed deletion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep for Michael Sarver, Lil Rounds, and Scott MacIntyre, which all had AFDs closed as keep less than a day ago. Weak Keep for all other finalists because as I stated in the other AFDs, they all pass criterion #9 of WP:Music, by placing in the top 13 of what is arguably the biggest music competition out there. Keep for the other two, who had established notability prior to American Idol. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 11:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The AFD discussions for several of these articles were recently closed and renomination now would ignore that consensus. If someone has no notability outside American Idol the proper procedure would be to try to get it merged and redirected to the relevant season. There's no particular policy-based reason to try for another deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:06, 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 04:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian people

Even setting aside the obvious POV (see also the talk page) and terrible grammar, this is one big piece of original research. Not a single verifiable, reliable source is presented attesting to scholarly opinion that a Venetian ethnic group exists. I checked a neutral source myself - David Levinson's Ethnic Groups Worldwide, and found many ethnic groups discussed for Italy: Italians, Sicilians, Friulians, Ladin, Greeks, Gypsies, Jews, South Tyroleans, Albanians, Slovenes, Catalans, Croatians, French, Sardinians, along with more recent arrivals - but nothing about the 10 million Venetians alleged here. This article is a synthesis and a coatrack, and should be deleted. Biruitorul ^Talk 07:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and Biruitorul. Oli ^OR Pyfan! 08:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any regional or subregional name can have "people" added to it and, behold, it becomes an ethnographic topic. The article is a coatrack manifesto for some obscure idea, and the claims it makes are ludicrous. Dahn (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Move to "People of Veneto" - I find the article interesting although I am not sure if it could be considered as an "ethnic group". The article should be allowed to mature and a notification to the noticeboard for Italy-related topics should be sent. Also, people who have their own distinct language can actually claim to be an ethnic group. --23prootie (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V is not optional. If there are any reliable sources claiming Venetians as an ethnic group, I'd like to see them. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- found two interesting related articles. Venetism, Venetian People's Unity, Union of the Venetian People, and Venetian People's Movement.
- The first, though obscure, is an ideology validated by sources; the third are political parties the existence of which is easily confirmed by sources. That is not at all the case with the present article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are such people -- I talked to a guy at Lowe's who claimed that he was a Venetian blind man -- but he didn't seem to have any problems with his eyesight, so I'm dubious about the information. Mandsford (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are and were Venetians (citizens of Venice during its heyday, and citizens of the Veneto today). WP has recognized a separate language for these people and has a Wikipedia in it: Venetian language, [32]. But an article on them would best be started from scratch, I think. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The comment above looks like an endorsement of WP:SYNTH. For one, the existence of a language does not automatically mean the existence of a people to go with it. Secondly, the existence of a regional identity at a time when ethnic and national identities were secondary or very different from what they supposedly are today is not a criterion (or, if it is, then we might as well start calling any such supposed identity an ethnic identity and create articles as such). The singular criterion here should be are they consistently discussed as an ethnicity in present-day third-party sources? They apparently aren't. Dahn (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please all let's avoid WP:Overtagging, also I'd like to hear more input from those familiar with ethnic group histories in Italy to make an informed decision. -- Banjeboi 06:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you'd like to examine the Levinson source I mentioned, certainly have a look and browse through these pages. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm hardly historian or even a reference expert. I'd rather simply hear more input from those who are more knowledgeable on the subject. I seen this before on AfD when a less-known fact was dredged up or someone pointed out that gee, this sounds like X subject, I'd rather have a more informed decision is all. -- Banjeboi 08:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, and I support Dahn's comment also. dougweller (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I give you all a reference http://www.regione.veneto.it/La+Regione/Statuto+Regionale.htm the article number 2 of the costitutional paper of Regione Veneto made in 1971 and still today fully active, says clearly and use the term : "Venetian People" (Popolo Veneto). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raffaeleserafini (talk • contribs) 17:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do familiarise yourself with WP:PSTS, an official policy: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...OR...a dialect does not a people make. For instance: The country of Belgium/Flanders region has hundreds of dialects. Some barely understand each other. But all the people that speak the Teautonic based dialects are Flemish. This article seems to be more what the editor(s) would like rather than what is.--Buster7 (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this group the ones that the article is about? I presume Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z is reliable but I might be misreading this as well. -- Banjeboi 12:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge I am normally an inclusionist, but this is one BIG piece of WP:OR, not to mention WP:NPOV violations. This article should be deleted as fast as possible, or merged per ip below.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Veneto which does a much better job on the Roman period, Alaric, Attila, and the Venetian Republic, but does not contain linguistic and cultural details found here. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 17:00, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Classical Academy

I read Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Education to say that decisions on schools are hard and they shouldn't be speedied, so removing from db-spam queue and taking to AfD. I deleted some of the paragraphs. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 06:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they're not usually deleted under the A7 criterion because it's controversial. There's no reason not to apply G11 or G12 when it blatantly applies. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I just said the same thing on my talk page. G12 (copyvio) always, and I'd db-spam a particularly slick promotional piece for a private school if I couldn't find any evidence of notability. But if some kid is writing about their school, I take WP:OUTCOMES#Education to mean that it's probably not my call whether to delete or not; so far that's what I'm hearing from other admins, but tell me if you know of "safe" guidelines. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 06:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 06:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep as amended. Original article was total spam, almost like an ad. {Sorry, not aware that education establishments are not normally speedied.)--Dmol (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to the school district. There is not enough information to warrant a separate article. Also, no independent sources, means no independent article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my usual reasons. Secondary schools are significant places. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - high school for which sources are available for suitable expansion. Such pages should be improved not deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that comment relevant to this article? There are no such sources. If you can find some, you should mention them in your comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 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 speedy delete. per WP:CSD#G3 Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skrot

WP:NEOLOGISM, no assertion of use, notability, only verifiable search was an Urban Dictionary Entry, created on March 1. ∗ \ / (⁂) 06:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wouldn't even consider the Urban Dictionary entry to be a reliable source. I think this falls under WP:NEO AND WP:NFT. Matt (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Neutral Point of View, the notability guidelines and WP:NEOLOGISM. Oli ^OR Pyfan! 08:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism. . .Rcawsey (talk) 09:14, 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 redirect to Sunnynook, New Zealand. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wairau Intermediate School

Google doesn't have anything to show why this is notable, apparently written by a student, both to promote their school and their own website (Block 1). Middle schools are not generally notable on their own. Terrillja _talk 06:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (possibly speedy G11) It is a piece of promotion and wouldn't be of any help to someone trying to write a well-referenced solid article about the topic. Even if someone gives it a go, this particular draft needs to go. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Forrest Hill, New Zealand#Education~~Sunnynook, New Zealand#Education. All the mergeable content is already at the target, This is a useful redirect and accords with normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sunnynook, New Zealand, as Wairau Intermediate already does. There are no fixed boundaries between suburbs in New Zealand, so whether the school is part of Forrest Hill or Sunnynook is open to some interpretation, but it is on Sunnynook Road, opposite Sunnynook Park, and much closer to Sunnynook School than it is to Forrest Hill School. Despite its name, it isn't part of the adjacent suburb of Wairau Valley either.-gadfium 20:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it! Can't say I know anything about municipal boundaries in NZ.--Terrillja _talk 22:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sunnynook, see only a trivial mention on the NZ Herald website [33], not notable for own article. XLerate (talk) 22:47, 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 00:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Martin (canoer)

Placed 7th at '84 Olympics in a single event. Had to make a few attempts on Google to assert it was not a hoax. Not notable enough to self-sustain an article. Merge into appropriate existing Olympic article. It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 06:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC) This article is correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.200.4 (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article Canoeing at the 1984 Summer Olympics only mentions the medal winners, so merging would throw the whole article structure out of whack. Since Olympic athletes are considered notable per WP:ATHLETE he needs to be covered somewhere, so his own article is the best place, even if the resulting article is a stub. (Note: Merging this into the appropriate Olympics page would not have required deletion at any points. Merges are supposed to be followed up with a redirect to retain the edit history.) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of anyone's individual view on whether everyone who competed in the Olympics should have an article, this is one of the most soundly established precedents here. We don't officially follow precedent--but in practice this would amount to changing consensus about something that has been approved hundreds of times by the great majority of interested people. At present "notability" = a separate article, not a merged section. Perhaps that should change also, and in fact the guideline says that justifying an article by WP:N does not mean that one must have one--but again, this would be a very major change in established practice, and this is not the time or place to make it--even though I might just possibly support it myself. DGG (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a clear keep, for reasons outlined above. I have added a reference and some more information, removing the hoax tag. Parslad (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the notability requirement WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep He may not be known by most, but he passes the athlete notability guidline.User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 00:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, easily meets WP:ATHLETE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:ATHLETE. He has competed in the Olympic Games. Untick (talk) 14:55, 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 keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Secret

Declining speedy db-spam deletion; article has been around 1.5 years, and it's not promotional, but there are WP:WAF concerns, and no references. Taking to AfD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notified Talk:Diana Wynne Jones. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even though article is in need of cleanup, plenty of references from reliable third party sources from around the world are available: San Francisco Chronicle, January Magazine, Malaysia Star, Publisher's Weekly, SF Site, and more. The book itself is available for review at Google Books. Is there work to be done here? Plenty, but AfD is not cleanup and this article went straight from no tags to AfD? Without a cursory search for sources? That's not proper. - Dravecky (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! I couldn't sleep last night, so I was doing CSD work at 3 a.m. ... apparently that's not a good idea, I also speedied something as A7 that should have been G11. I've gone through and checked my other AfDs from last night, and I checked for notability on all of them except this one. Sorry. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, are you saying you are withdrawing the nomination? If so, perhaps an uninvolved admin will close this.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started the article, and just did a stub because it is a very convoluted plot and difficult to summarize. I would agree with Dravecky, it needs cleanup, but it is a notable book by a well known author.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps the focus should be on the reviews and general, not on the plot. I find that sometimes distracts from writing a better article. Fights over minutia tend to dominate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wehwalt has brought up withdrawing the nomination, and I have no objection to that, per my comments above. I forgot to do my homework on this one. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:43, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High school for medical professions

There's more or less consensus that articles on schools deserve at least a 5-day discussion; declining speedy db-spam deletion; taking to AfD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I think an article on this school has merit, this particular entry is so incredibly subpar (POV/OR) that I believe it harms Wikipedia to keep it until something better is written. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the problems have now been fixed. TerriersFan (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By precedent, high schools are inherently notable. I rewrote the text on the page and wikified it. This is apparently opening in the buildings of Canarsie High School, which is closing. Surprised that we do not have an article on pre-medical curriculum. The true horror is the news of the opening of a "High School for Innovation in Advertising and Media". Note that they just couldn't call it "High School for Advertising and Media". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, we do have an article on "pre-medical". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this has now been improved to a valid stub. It is a highly unusual school, possibly unique, and sources are available for further expansion. TerriersFan (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. This is not a true high school. A frequent current practice in NYC is to place multiple independent mini-"high schools" in the same building. As the article says, this is to make a sharp break with previous persistent failure of the large school. This particular school has an enrollment of only 115 students in its first class, which is all there is--it opened in Sept 2008. It will not have a single graduate until 2012! I am not certain that new high schools which have no track record and no alumni are necessarily notable. I am not sure that mini-schools like this are necessarily notable. Some have in fact gotten significant news coverage for various reasons. Unless this one has, I'm not sure I am prepared to take a step which would seem similar to making the individual houses in British public schools notable. DGG (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue I'd have with merging this content back into the article on the institution's former name (Canarsie High School) is that, in fact, this is not what the NYC Board of Education has chosen to call it any more. If this is in fact a common practice, then perhaps stubs on these schools could be merged somewhere. I have no opinion on what such a merged article might be called. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note also the existence of an article on Specialized high schools in New York City, and its associated template. Some of the other schools named therein are quite small, like Brooklyn Latin School. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The High School for Medical Professions isn't a specialized high school according to the NYC Department of Education's Specialized High Schools Student Handbook. New York defines those schools very clearly - subject to the Specialized High Schools Admissions Test, with one exception (Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts). I have corrected the article and the template. RossPatterson (talk) 00:34, 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 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Torres

Autobiography. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, although Gnews turns up a trivial mention or two. [34]. Delete — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a few sources, but i don't see how he's notable. 7triton7 (talk) 05:04, 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 00:05, 22 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 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He Tian Hao

This seems to be a hoax. It was created by a single-use account two years ago (literally the only edit), and has had only superficial changes since then. No references are cited. On the comment page, somebody else has suggested it may be false, as the instrument involved did not exist in its current form at that point. I can find no non-Wikipedia references on the web to this person. Rigadoun (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything about the subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure if it's a hoax, but it's not notable. 7triton7 (talk) 05:32, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't help much, but it's worth noting that we have an article about his "wife" too, Wen Peixin. No sources there either, though. The two articles were written three months apart, by different accounts. And by the way, erhu says that the instrument has existed for 1000 years, although used mainly for accompaniment before the 20th century. Looie496 (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails the smell test, & combined with the other concerns Rigadoun raises would lead me to submit it for deletion. -- llywrch (talk) 23:04, 26 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 02:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Springs Kids Playhouse

Removing from db-spam queue; not overly promotional, and I see a number of Google hits in newspapers, but notability is in question. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - A search of Google news turns turns up multiple sources. However, they would need to be added to the article, and the article needs cleaned up.Wacko Jack O 23:16, 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 00:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Basically a summer camp, and except in truly extraordinary situations, those aren't notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not the most notable thing I have seen recently, but if somebody can show notability, by all means, do.--Unionhawk (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this is more like a summer camp. As such is fails notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:14, 26 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) 00:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yurihonjo hinakaido

I'm out of my depth here; removing from db-spam queue, notifying WP:JAPAN to help with notability issues. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the links I just listed on the talk page. The festival is covered by multiple national newspapers in Japan (Asahi Shinbun, Mainichi Shinbun) as well as other news outlets. The city where it happens has extensive coverage on the festival, as does the prefecture. Hotels and travel companies advertise the festival as a reason to visit the location. The festival is definitely notable, and the article only needs to be reworked a bit and sourced. The links I listed should give an excellent start on that. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, very spammy, undersourced, suffering from far too many "nihongo" templates where "nihongo2" would be better, starved of macrons (and thus morae); but as Nihonjoe says, potentially worthwhile. -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given Nihonjoe's sources, keep and start cleaning up. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment copied from my talk page: "well, as the author of this, you should consider that there is barely any other information on this area in the wikipedia and that this event is set to grow in the coming years to become a major tourist attraction in the area. I decided to include it because it is cultural, historical and also unique.Chrissato (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)chrissato" - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not really about whether to keep or delete, but just felt that the jpg image of the doll in the article may be identical to another on the net. Please see: Talk:Yurihonjo hinakaido too. Mantokun (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I originally tagged as G11, especially because the material close to the bottom suggests that the article that it was created as promotion, notable or not. I have tagged as {{advertisement}} and removed that last section as spam; I'll leave for the community to do whatever to the rest. MuZemike 15:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MuZemike has removed the only section I had a problem with. So long as that sticks, this isn't spam, and the sources are sufficient. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:53, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GGV Capital

Sources are either press releases, passing mentions in reliable sources or coverage in a marketing newsletter not meeting WP:RS, especially when it is the main source of "significant coverage". I could find no news coverage that could be used to establish notability. Flowanda | Talk 04:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firms of this type can have quite a lot of private money under their management but still be too poorly covered in RS sources to support an article. As with US mutual funds, UK investment trusts and OEICS, etc, these things are not individually notable (except when hit by scandal). --DanielRigal (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This passes the notability threshold as set forth in WP:CORP. The criteria there is the "company ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". The article currently has listed several third party sources that provide articles about the firm. I don't think a claim can be made that any of these constitute trivial coverage. The commentary about whether the AltAssets news service meets the criteria for relaiability, per WP:RS, I think it pretty clearly is (1) reliable - the news is accurate, comprehensive on this sector and presented in a factual non-biased fashion, (2) third-party - there is no affiliation with the firms it covers or any claim that it covers this firm more because of some relationship and (3) published source - this is a widely available source that has been used and accepted in many other places in wikipedia. If we establish this is a WP:RS then I think it is difficult to make the case that the article is not properly covered.

Additionally, this firm is a major investor in the venture capital space, among the larger firms with over $1 billion of capital under management and a portfolio of investments in notable companies. Unlike a mutual fund which invests passively in public companies, venture capital and prviate equity firms typically own and control the notable companies in their portfolio. A mutual fund is simply a pool of capital, and compares more closely with the individual funds that this firm manages. I do not propose coverage of individual funds. This firm is an asset manager, more akin to a mutual fund company (The Vanguard Group, Fidelity Investments, etc. Additionally, the article is in a very clean / unpromotional form and should be kept for other users to contribute.

I also find the idea that these firms are only notable when hit by scandal to be an unfortunate commentary. I think the coverage of a limited number of individual, notable private equity and venture capital firms is beneficial to wikipedia and this article meets requirements for notability.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: What I meant is that investment vehicles tend to live quiet, blameless, non-notable, lives unless something (usually something bad) happens to them to get them coverage. Most of them will never be involved in a scandal. A very few of them will achieve notability in other ways. I agree that we should have coverage of the few companies that are notable, whatever they are notable for. I am unconvinced that this company is one of them. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question But then what are your criteria for inclusion? I think if you took a smaller venture firm it would not be covered like GGV in reliable industry related publications like AltAssets and would have a very hard time establishing notability at all. I have in my two years on Wikipedia been involved with the deltion of many of non-notable private equity related articles and have tried to adhere consistently to the guidelines for notability. Over the last few months, I have tagged several non-notable articles and later suggested proposed deletion. Additionally I have proactively created articles on firms that I believe are notable and valuable additions because of historical signifiicance or size and prominence. This article was not one I had proactively included in my list of articles to be added but since it was added by another editor, I think the question is (1) does the subject meet notability requirements set forth in WP:CORP and does the article conform with other guidelines. based on my assessment, I think the article does meet these criteria and should be kept. I would be more than happy to discuss other less notable articles that are more apporopriate candidates for deletion.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 19:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment size is relevant. There are two figures given, & only one of them is real. They firm has $1 billion of assets under management. It has invested them in companies worth $35 billion. The relevant figure of course is the $1 billion. If I buy a share of Microsoft, I do not thereby become a billionaire. Now, if there is an assertion that this gives it a controlling influence on the companies, that, if documented, would bee meaningful, but a 3% interest is not usually controlling. DGG (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only $1 billion is relevant. The $33 or $35 billion number is somewhat less informative in that it refers to the value at exit so it includes both a return on investment and their respective % ownership of the companies. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:24, 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 00:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Size is relevant how? And sourced where? What am I missing in WP:N that gives this article as it stands any notability other than a comment from a top admin? Yes, no, I really, truly, don't care, but please declare one way or the other. Flowanda | Talk 08:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Size is sourced in the references on the page. I agree - this discussion has drawn relatively limited discussion other than the nominating editor and a major contributor. I think there is very little concensus to delete. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is always a little unsatisfactory when an AfD ends like that. Please let me put a some delsorts on it and give it another day or so. We might yet get somewhere. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references listed don't meet WP:RS, and I couldn't find any others that did.-- that's why I nominated it for deletion. This isn't just an argument between editors; either the article stands, or it doesn't. If there are other sources that can be found to establish the notability defined in Wikipedia policy/guidelines, then I'll be happy to help look for them, but so should the other editors and admins who've contributed to this discussion. Flowanda | Talk 07:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not given any reason why the references in the article do not meet WP:RS. There are already 8 references listed on the page, these are third party, unrelated, broadly circulated publications. The firm is notable and notability is established. But we have been over this territory already01:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G5 by User:MarthaFiles. Matt (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bigotry and the panarabism ideology

Largely WP:OR & WP:SYNTH. A similar article was deleted on similar grounds at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti Jewish Arabism, And while this article seemed to exceed the bounds for CSD:G4, it doesn't seem all that different from the previous AfD in terms of OR/SYNTH. Versa geek 04:26, 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 redirect to Avatar: The Last Airbender#Promotion and merchandising. No consensus to delete. Closing as "redirect" with no prejudice against reversion. Consider this a "keep" close with an editorial decision to redirect (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar: The Last Airbender Trading Card Game

Un-notable article with no citations to establish notability; written in a completely in-universe manner, describing only the game rules but nothing else. haha169 (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a fellow member of WP:AVATAR, I can say that all the useful information is there in the main article. As this does not satisfy the notability criteria and does not have any useful information, delete is the way to go. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect to to Avatar: The Last Airbender#Promotion and merchandising would be a good idea, per Mac. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 15:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap and this seems a likely search term that should point the reader to the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the redirect idea. --haha169 (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak~~ keep [35], [36] are reasonable sources/reviews. Just hitting the multiple non-trivial sources. The first is childish (hey, it's a kids game) and the second is about the release. Hobit (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with you that it exists and is verifiable, but I still don't see anything that makes it notable. The fact that it exists means it deserves two lines in the main article (which it gets), not an entire fancrufty article. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I generally follow path in an AfD that a topic with meets WP:N and for which a reasonable article can be written should be kept here. Merging/redirecting editorially is always an option. But this meets our inclusion guidelines. And frankly, from what I can tell, there are some very interesting mechanics in this game (never played it). So a good article might well be possible to write. Hobit (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep, Scrye has some coverage proveably and likely has a bunch. Hobit (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search shows that here is some discussion of the prospects for the TCG in the NYT and I don't doubt that there is more comprehesive coverage in more specialised sources such as Scrye. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT one looks fairly trivial, but I agree, Scrye would certainly have something, probably a lot of something. [37] indicates that Scrye had an article in issue 93 on the topic. Hobit (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. The links provided describe the way the game is played, and the rules, but nothing about its history, creation, and development. The article does list a few sentences on the subject, but so does the main article. As the nominator, am I allowed to withdraw and redirect? --haha169 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know exactly how you know what the Scrye article has in it. I strongly suspect various articles from that will cover much of that information. And you can certainly withdraw, but I don't think a redirect is in order at this point. Hobit (talk) 00:23, 21 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, 22 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 23:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Husain

Subject is not notable. Article contains a lot of namedropping, but in the end we have a teacher and director who runs workshops (for which the only reference I can find is two brief mentions in a source whose reliability and notability I doubt, [38] and [39]) and a Development Center, for which I could find one reference, also of questionable authority and notability. Much of the article is concerned with an article the subject wrote in 1992, which has never been published academically, as far as I can ascertain (judge for yourself with the Google results), an interview in an online source, and an alleged textbook (without bibliographical information--a search on the OUP site gives no such results for "Abbas" or for "Husain," nor does the LoC. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete I see enough some published work e.g. but not enough evidence of citations, or impact to pass WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines for inclusion. No substantial coverage in independent sources etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Some scholarship, but not enough for Notability. Vartanza (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone could source the claim that he has trained 13,000 teachers, we would probably be able to get him into the Guinness Book of World Records, but barring such evidence, does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 08:28, 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic Waste (confectionery)

Declining db-spam since the article has been around a couple of years; Google hits suggest the candy might have entered popular culture sufficiently, but I can't tell. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. Keep The coverage is slight. But the sources Caspian came up with are enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the product seem to be gaining "sufficiently notability" according to google news hits.[40]--Caspian blue 18:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all press releases. If there is any substantial coverage from reliable sources please add it to the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not every news are "press releases".[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]--Caspian blue 19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you find good sources, I will change my vote to keep. But I looked at the google new sites you mentioned ealier and didn't see anything. And the first one of the links you mention now I checked out from the Washington Post isn't even about this candy. It says, "Even the Toxic Waste Sour Candy spray with a rat finger puppet on top was a hit. (It tastes better than it sounds, we promise.) "I love sour stuff," said Brandi Moore, 10. "I took five sprays" of Toxic Waste." But this article is about a hard sour candy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. this one was also fun. I'm not an inclusionist, exactly, but I think it makes sense to have different inclusion standards for candy than for say software. If a lot of large newspapers are running stories that mention the candy, if only to say "Wow, that's sour!", that's about as notable as most candies are ever going to get. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:24, 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 02:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ID\TBWA

Article is little more than a "business card" for this Brazilian advertisement agency, who created a Wikipedia page in order to copy another agency who refers to Wikipedia instead of having a regular website. Their entry at the Portuguese Wikipedia was already deleted. -- LodeRunner (talk) 03:44, 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 00:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No assertion of notability. LK (talk) 18:04, 22 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) 00:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airlines Based in Hawaii

Seems redundant to Category:Airlines of Hawaii as it doesn't really add much. Basically a glorified, incomplete list. Hawaiian717 (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listify as List of airlines in Hawaii and expand to list-class quality. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move, and improve per Viriditas. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, etc., per Viriditas --haha169 (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:CLN the existance of a category is not a reason to delete a list. When that list either does or can add value beyond the category then I think the list should always be kept. In this case it currenty adds value (although it needs improving) and even if it made into a list I can see value in it as it could include information on number of aircraft, formation date etc. allowing comparision of the different airlines something that is much more difficult with categories. Dpmuk (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/Projectify While it might potentially add value in the future, it currently detracts value because it's not reliably sourced. It should be sourced before it's allowed to go live at the properly titled List of Hawaiian airlines in mainspace (the old title it was moved from can be retained as a redirect. This title is mistyped and should be deleted per naming conventions). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Hawaiian" generally means someone of Hawaiian descent, so we tend to use "in Hawaii" to designate lists by state. That, and "in X" is standard, state-related list naming convetion; Hawaii is no different. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I would also avoid the category title "List of Hawaiian airlines" as it has the potential to be confused with Hawaiian Airlines. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since it's hard to drive from one county to another in Hawaii without getting wet, people rely on small carriers more than they might in other states. Mandsford (talk) 19:22, 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 04:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Lather

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable. No additions to article since the last time it was put up for deletion in 2004. The comments at Talk:Haiku also say Rajiv Lather is non-notable. Jay (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had previously (in 2004) argued for a keep, but since then our notability criteria have become clearer, and I don't think he makes the cut based on anything currently in the article. If he is more notable than the article currently suggests, then someone needs to edit it to demonstrate that. - Jmabel | Talk 17:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had marked it for speedy deletion, I believe, as something utterly nonsensical. A person's haiku have been published? Well, that puts him in the company with some tens of thousands. Is there any indication that this is a major poet? No. Is there indication that this is a well known poet? (Are there any of such an age?) Then there's this defense writing, which is unrelated and, again, without any indication of significance. "I have written major arguments on the economy and many haikus about the human condition" sounds nice until I add "in spray paint on the walls of banks" after the first clause and "in bathroom stalls" after the second. We have to have some indication of reception, effect, and reaction. Publication is difficult, but not difficult enough to mean significance. Geogre (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frogpond is the main publication of the Haiku Society of America, which is significant enough for an article. Whether a regular contributor to such a journal is significant enough for Wikipedia, I couldn't say. No vote at this time The Steve 07:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, it is. However, when we are talking about US haiku, we're in pretty thin air to begin with. Getting published in a poetry journal is difficult, but it does not confer any other status. Had this person been published in Poetry, he would still have been a singly published poet. Again, very nice, but, again, not a sign of being a major poet. The point is that we don't say, "As a freelance writer getting an article published in Newsweek warrants a biographical article in Wikipedia," and so we wouldn't say even getting published in a major poetry journal would. Add to that that this is analagous to the equivalent of getting published in Mother Jones or Green Living rather than Newsweek, and the case gets weaker. Writers self-promote because they have to. This is promotion. Hence, it violates the advertising clause of the deletion guideline. Geogre (talk) 10:39, 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 List of multiplayer browser games. MBisanz ^talk 04:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChallengeYou

Non-notable browser game. No reliable sources that provide significant coverage. Articles fails WP:WEB and WP:NOTE. Sloane (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think The Guardian is reliable enough, and it seems to be significant coverage. Also, article complete passes Wikipedia policy WP:V. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst the Guardian is a reliable source and has boderline significant coverage, it is the only source that comes up with google news and notability requires multiple. --neon white talk 07:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. Trivial mention in a notable source and extensive coverage in a non-notable source just doesn't cut it. Wyatt Riot (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I thought that only one reliable source should encourage other editors to find another source, and not just simply write the article off as another unsourced article. Elm-39 - T/C/N 12:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried and couldn't find any. --neon white talk 23:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and list at List of multiplayer browser games. I'm looking at WP:N. Is the coverage significant? The Guardian - good source, but only two sentences. The Gamer Report - I can't tell if this is a WP:SPS or a WP:RS. If I give the benefit of the doubt, that's one item of significant coverage. Per Wikipedia:N#cite_note-3, this is borderline notability and is more suitable for inclusion in a broader article. Marasmusine (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:NOTE X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Agree with Ks64q2 that The Guardian is reliable enough, even if it is brief coverage. Also, other similar games have approximately the same degree of coverage. Fracked (talk) TIME 12:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Guardian reference is no more than a paragraph on of the Guardian's blogs. It might be slightly helpful in a larger article about game engine tools. But here it's little more than a trivial mention, which means it isn't enough to meet the inclusion criteria of WP:WEB.--Sloane (talk) 17:13, 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 02:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Alder

Biographical article about non-notable individual. The article creator, who appears to be a SPA intent on building notability for members of the Alder family, has provided no references in support of any of the claims made in the article. Russell A. Alder, a similar article, was previously deleted because a prod citing lack of notability was not contested. This and another article, R. Ashley Alder, have been tagged as needing references since December 2007 but none have been supplied. I added prods to all three articles. The page creator deleted all three prods but provided no references to any article. Without proof of notability these articles should be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - After re-reading the above it appears that I may have implied that the three articles I added prods to were R. Ashley Alder, Allen Alder and Russell A. Alder. In fact, the third article is Russell A Alder, which was created two months after Russell A. Alder was deleted. Russell A Alder has also been nominated for deletion. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence or claim of notability. JJL (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki. Didn't find any independent sources. Ottre 17:23, 17 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 00:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository for obituaries, and I'm afraid to say this looks like an attempt to jump up relatively minor achievements. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:15, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russell A Alder

Biographical article about non-notable individual. This article was originally created at Russell A. Alder and was deleted there because a prod citing lack of notability was not contested. The article creator, who appears to be a SPA intent on building notability for members of the Alder family, has provided no references in support of any of the claims made in the article. Other articles created by him/her (specifically Allen Alder and R. Ashley Alder) have been tagged as needing references since December 2007 but none have been supplied. I added prods to all three articles. The page creator deleted all three prods but provided no references to any article. Without proof of notability these articles should be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence or sources showing notability. JJL (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all appears to be original research. No notability or reliable sources are used. Jd027 (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dubious claims. No external sources. LK (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More jumped-up claims. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:17, 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R. Ashley Alder

Biographical article about non-notable individual. The article creator, who appears to be a SPA intent on building notability for members of the Alder family, has provided no references in support of any of the claims made in the article. Russell A. Alder, a similar article, was previously deleted because a prod citing lack of notability was not contested. This and another article, Allen Alder, have been tagged as needing references since December 2007 but none have been supplied. I added prods to all three articles. The page creator deleted all three prods but provided no references to any article. Without proof of notability these articles should be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - After re-reading the above it appears that I may have implied that the three articles I added prods to were R. Ashley Alder, Allen Alder and Russell A. Alder. In fact, the third article is Russell A Alder, which was created two months after Russell A. Alder was deleted. Russell A Alder has also been nominated for deletion. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence or sources showing notability. JJL (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence or sources showing notability.Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unclear why this is notable. 7triton7 (talk) 05:01, 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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Garber

Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE Shadowjams (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:N either.--2008Olympian^chitchat 19:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:Athlete. No indication of notability. Parslad (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established. Delete.--Giants27 ^T/C 17:43, 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 speedy keep as pure disruption. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 09:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Sylvia Browne

Delete and userfy for creators and/or supporting editors, until all attack POV is removed, per BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remark—Filling AfD with "Criticism of" articles could be considered disruptive and pointy. Please stop. If you think all "criticism of" articles need to go, something like a RFC might be better than all these individual nominations.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sylvia Browne. This page fails to live up to the neutral standards that we employ and I suspect that any page with "criticism" in the title fails some aspect of WP:NPOV. There's good information here, but it should be placed in the context of a larger, balanced article on the topic rather than separated out. (And this is even more true for living persons.) JRP (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article appears well-sourced. If you see POV problems, then fix them. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no clear deletion rationale given. WillOakland (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. T-95 (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No any rationale for deletion was provided by the nominator.Biophys (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well-sourced, nothing inherently POV about the article. ScienceApe (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not important enough for a spinoff article.DGG (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on principle, per S Marshall. This whole business of "criticism of" sections and articles actually endorses this whole idea that everyone has to have pros and cons, fairness and balance, etc. etc.
Merge to Sylvia Browne per Talk:Sylvia Browne#Merge proposal. And possibly speedy-close this. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:30, 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 keep as pure disruption. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 09:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Vladimir Putin

AfDs for this article:

Delete and userfy for creators and/or supporting editors, until all attack POV is removed, per BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid use of a "criticism" article per WP:POVFORK and based on the fact that the source article is already so large than splitting into sections is valid. I have concerns over the naming of this article as a POV stance, but I can offer no better alternatives immediately. JRP (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no clear deletion rationale given. WillOakland (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No any rationale for deletion was provided by the nominator.Biophys (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Putin is important enough. Some effort needs to be made to find not just criticisms, but RS discussions of the sort of criticisms he gets, & why. DGG (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge--if there is criticism of Putin, it should be in the main article. I'd like to make a principled stand here also, but I'm a vox clamantis already. Whatever info in this article is worth keeping should be incorporated into respective sections in the main article, not in some separate "criticism" section, which just attracts flaming and soapboxing. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Completely valid concept for an article. Needs to be sourced and NPOV, but thats a matter for editors, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- POV is not a basis of deletion, it is a basis for editor work. Tag it with appropriate tags, if you wish, but POV issues aren't for AfD. --haha169 (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 06:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's request for deletion on similar articles seems like abuses of the procedure.--Caspian blue 07:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article is available word for word in Vladimir Putin. The information in this article was intentionally created by an editor by cherry-picking information to create a POV-fork. Many people forget that we are here to help build an encyclopaedia, not to advocate and to criticise (in the negative sense of the word) figures that they dearly hate; nor are we here to write glowing articles. Let's go thru this article. Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Civil_liberties_and_internal_dissent is available word for word at Vladimir_Putin#Criticism. Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Allegations_of_political_assassinations_and_muzzling_of_reporters is available word for word at Vladimir_Putin#Second_term_.282004.C2.A0.E2.80.93_2008.29 (next to the photo of Putin Tu-160 cockpit). [[Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Relations_with_.22oligarchs.22] is available word for wod at Vladimir_Putin#Second_term_.282004.C2.A0.E2.80.93_2008.29 (just above the photo of Putin Tu-160 cockpit). Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Environmental_concerns belongs at Vladimir_Putin#Environmental_record. Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Foreign_policy is available word for word at Vladimir_Putin#Foreign_policy (just below photo of Putin with Schroeder). It is plainly obvious that this was created as a WP:POVFORK in order to have an end-run around the WP:NPOV policy. Now if one looks at this piece by piece. Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Foreign_policy belongs (and is already present at) Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin. The rest belongs in an article called Domestic policy of Vladimir Putin (which is what the other attack "grotesque" WP:SYN article at Putinism basically is - and I say grotesque because the editor [who is currently blocked] who added most of the SYN himself said that was his plan). The trick is to have balance. Whilst Putin (and Russia in general) are hated in the Western media -- it's nothing new -- Russophobia goes back centuries to England and Denmark -- people tend to forget that Putin had genuine 80% approval ratings in Russia -- the highest of any national leader, and even now as PM has approval ratings in the mid-60s. Given the existence of this article, why shouldn't we break out all the positive things, and create Support of Vladimir Putin, because the current article is not a criticism article in the scholarly sense of the word. Given that all information is already present in other relevant articles, and the creation of relevant of NPOV articles should be a priority, this POVFORK should be deleted. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commment I thought you're anti-Putin given this edit warring.--Caspian blue 07:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vladimir Putin, there's no need for the Criticism of Vladimir Putin to have its own article. Oli ^OR Pyfan! 08:38, 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 keep as pure disruption. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Hugo Chávez

AfDs for this article:

Delete and userfy for creators and/or supporting editors, until all attack POV is removed, per BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with reservations. This article needs editing to meet WP:NPOV standards (especially in the light that he is a living person), but given the size and complexity of the Hugo Chavez article it is a necessary split for the sanity of that article. JRP (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at the Hugo Chavez article recently? It was slimmed down, with much material moved to daughter articles. Rd232 ^talk 01:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no clear deletion rationale given. WillOakland (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be clearer, but it seems to pointing at WP:COATRACK issues. Rd232 ^talk 01:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant material to related articles, reformulated not as "criticism" (WP:SOAPBOX) but as verifiable, relevant, up-to-date, etc information. Rd232 ^talk 01:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No any rationale for deletion was provided by the nominator.Biophys (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' important enough. Some effort needs to be made to find not just criticisms, but RS discussions of the sort of criticisms he gets, & why. The tone of this article is altogether too negative & it needs some balance. "criticism of" does not mean "attacks on" DGG (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge--if there is criticism of Putin, Chavez, Peter Pan, etc., it should be in the main article. I'd like to make a principled stand here also, but I'm a vox clamantis already. Whatever info in this article is worth keeping should be incorporated into respective sections in the main article, not in some separate "criticism" section, which just attracts flaming and soapboxing. (Sorry if you've heard this before.) Drmies (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Completely valid concept for an article. Needs to be sourced and NPOV, but thats a matter for editors, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:50, 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 keep as pure disruption. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Noam Chomsky

AfDs for this article:

Delete and userfy for creators and/or supporting editors, until all attack POV is removed, per BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Ism schism (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no clear deletion rationale given. WillOakland (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the other "criticism" articles in this list, this article would be a valid for a merge, but cannot be done so because of the size of the existing article. A better name might be appropriate to work through NPOV and BPL concerns. JRP (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No any rationale for deletion was provided by the nominator.Biophys (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Criticizing Noam Chomsky? Who in their right mind would want to do that? OK, Merge--if there is criticism of Chomsky, it should be in the main article. I'd like to make a principled stand here also, but I'm a vox clamantis already. Whatever info in this article is worth keeping should be incorporated into respective sections in the main article, not in some separate "criticism" section, which just attracts flaming and soapboxing. (Sorry if you've heard this before.) (Sorry if you've heard that before.) Drmies (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Completely valid concept for an article. Needs to be sourced and NPOV, but thats a matter for editors, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Articles with the same concept are found abundantly, and the nom is very week. --Caspian blue 06:59, 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. WP:CSD#A3 (no content) Mgm|^(talk) 11:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sunday (only) newspapers in the United States

This is a list with no contents. Johnelwayrules (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This list has been around since 2006 and has never had any content. I would say delete this, since it currently is not at all helpful. If someone wants to populate the list, I'll change my recommendation. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an empty article. Criteria A3. JRP (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A3) as no content besides links – a linkfarm. MuZemike 02:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The American and British models of papers are much different where in the UK a Sunday-only paper is normal, whereas in the United States a Sunday paper must be connected to a daily paper. I don't think there are any Sunday-only papers, so this article is unneeded. Nate • (chatter) 02:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the empty list with no contents whatsoever. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:38, 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, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Lynne Pendergast

I don't think this person meets the notability standards of WP:BIO, or that enough reliable, independent sources are available to verify notability. This person's accomplishments seem pretty trivial to appear in an article. Jd027^talk 01:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a Gsearch didn't reveal anything that would establish notability for the subject. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. She may be notable someday, but at this time it does not appear that there are enough neutral and reliable sources to build a case for notability. JRP (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably could have been speedied as spam. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 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 no consensus. , but suggest considering a merge to fourth wall. MBisanz ^talk 06:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth wall

Non-notable neologism which has not received substantial coverage from reliable sources. After searching online, I found some references to the term "fifth wall" in a Shakespearean context, but they do not appear to have any relation to the usage indicated by this article. There were zero reliable references that mention this term at all in the way the article uses it. The actual content is an original research definition followed by an extensive list of unreferenced, likely unverifiable trivia and speculation, mostly of the sort "here's something I saw in a movie/cartoon/tv show that I like which may be related to something else I like". I removed the listing of cruft and tagged the article a few times, but those edits were consistently reverted so I raised my concerns on the talk page. There has been no response there and realistically I don't see how this article can be brought up to policy considering the lack of available sources, so I am bringing it to AFD. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into fourth wall if sources can be found to verify the term. Jd027^talk 01:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a commonly used concept and it shouldn't be too hard to produce references for it. Majoreditor (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked and didn't find any. Can you produce references that use this term in the context of the article? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite apparently a major critical concept, but it does not mean what this article says it does--rather it means anything taking place offstage. [49] has a number of good references. Time travel would perhaps be one of those but I havent seen it given as such yet. DGG (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the items returned in that search talk about the "fifth wall" in the context of the article. In fact, it's a mishmash of random usages. The phrase "fifth wall" has no set meaning; it's just used here and there, usually in passing, in any number of fields. No sources devote specific attention to the phrase itself. It fails WP:NEO. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that was a gunshot approach, but I have to agree with DGG. Despite the fact that sometimes fifth wall references are to literal walls, and often to the ceiling of a space as a design element, one of those cites is relevant [also see additional discussion from me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fifth_wall] :

Theatre Research International (2008), 33:127-144 Cambridge University Press

doi:10.1017/S0307883308003647

"The aim of this article to show that the space of the stage and the ways it is constructed are an important, meaning-generating element of every production. The space of the stage is seen as an artistic construct, the aim of which is to convey senses relevant to the goals of the director. The function of the scenic space goes far beyond a mere ‘representation’ of some fictional inhabited space; it has the ability to convey meanings that, among other things, evoke metaphorical readings. [blah blah blah] Golikov has introduced a scene in which the Euclidean geometry falls apart, and instead a simultaneous presentation of two subjective perspectives is provided [blah blah....] The essay raises theoretical issues connected with time and space in theatre." --Skandha101 06:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skandha101 (talk • contribs)

I looked through the sources you found and mentioned on the talk page. I am going to respond here to keep the discussion in one place.

The first three links (from gbooks) may be useful sources, but they have nothing to do with the current usage of the phrase in the article and they are probably not enough on their own to establish the phrase's notability, they appear to use the term simply to advance discussion of something else. Everything else (all links past the section break) is either promotional for places or companies that call themselves "Fifth Wall" or unreliable blogs/self-published sites which cannot be the basis for an articles. I don't think there's enough to establish notability or common usage of the term. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, and being less caffeinated today, I am finding it harder to be impressed that much of the current article is worth keeping. (And, "proliferant"?) To the extent that fifth wall is used in the real world, I'd have to agree that the article's alignment with the examples (including those I've cited) is pretty weak.--Skandha101 • 23:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am conflicted on this. It clearly is not the "fourth wall," which has had its own problems with original research examples added by Wikipedia editors. Where is a reliable source describing a "fifth wall" as what separates an actor's portrayals of different characters in different fictional universes? Yet it is a meaningful concept, and I would be surprised if no reliable source ever had reviews or criticism about it. Perhaps a different term is used. Edison (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup By finding some real sources Jwray (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as tvtropes - style original research if no real sources are provided. What do you get for googling "shatner" + "fifth wall"? I don't understand the point of "keep and rewrite", either rewrite it now or let's delete it without prejudice to a sourced article about a completely different topic with the same name. Nerfari (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, it does seem to exist as a frequent trope/metaphor if nothing else. However, nobody seems to have an interest or capability in aligning it, more coherently, with typical usage. (Or am I wrong? It's certainly an interesting concept, but yet, as it is, it is trivia soup and vagueness.) --Skandha101 • 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Until someone comes up with third party sources that name the idea you're espousing in this essay the "Fifth Wall", we can't create an encyclopedia article about it. A troll through Google Scholar came up with engineering references (like "after installing the fourth wall and before installing the sixth wall, you have to install the fifth wall"), and JSTOR came up only with references to a theater group named "The Fifth Wall". Unless you can show that responsible professionals in theater or literary studies actually call this concept the "Fifth Wall", preferably in peer-reviewed publications, we can't just accept this cause it's a good idea. Once you go out and establish this idea in the world outside wikipedia, only then can we write an article about it. T L Miles (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion and help adding references, but the first two examples refer to two different concepts, neither of which appears to me (ignorant completely of theatre terminiology) as the concept proposed in this page. The Shakespeare book seems the best bet, but it defines the concept as the "distance between the performer or critic and the audience". It also discusses the concept quite a bit. The second has one mention of "the fifth wall" where a critic is quoted proposing a meaning as "silence". That really can't contribute much. Per the google searches: they all define it differently. The Hunt work uses the term in relation to the shadow screen in Puppet Theatre. The Frencophone Africa work says " Soyinka establishes a fifth wall between the audience and the action, instead of creating a conventional living room space." Other uses include a 1962 German article which uses it as a metaphor, different from the article, books about design which call floor decorating the fifth wall, or references to at least two theatre troupes called "The Fifth Wall". I'm willing to accept this is a widely used term, but please propose what is actually means and provide some sources that support that meaning. The best bet appears to be the meaning defined in Hunter & Lichtenfels (2005), but it is a different meaning than that described in the article.T L Miles (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found one other mention: Theodore Sturgeon, Paul Williams, Larry McCaffery. Perfect Host. A playwright on page 373 is described as breaking the fifth wall between playwright and audience, becoming a character himself. Is this the meaning intended in the article? It's pretty tedious, though. One mention in one work, where the writer has to define the term, before moving on and not using it again? It really does sound like a neologism: perhaps an irresistibly named one (due to the ubiquity of the Fourth wall concept), but if there's no accepted definition, how can we write an article describing it? T L Miles (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: after re-reading the article and the history on Fourth wall, I gotta stick with Delete. The proposed meaning of "a meeting of characters from two different fictional universes" is entirely unsupported by any sources, and further is an entirely different meaning from meanings proposed in the third party references proffered here. I'm afraid it is a neologism.T L Miles (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the history of the neologism has historical sources yet to be added. Nom quite happily found some. Per search on Google Books: "Shakespeare, language and the stage: the fifth wall, approaches to Shakespeare from criticism, performance and theatre studies" ISBN 1904271499 and "Composing for voice" ISBN 0415941873. The concept goes back quite a ways in theater. The article needs editing to place history of the concept in context with its current usage as exemplified by "Fifth Wall" references found in Chud, film, stage blogs, etc. As an actor, I can attest to the concept being quite real and seperate from "Fourth Wall". Needs major cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of the Shakespearean usage, which has nothing to do with this article, the "current usage" as you put it is not established in the least. You cite a single DVD review which uses the phrase merely in passing in a parenthesized aside where the meaning isn't clear, a non-notable movie called the "5th Wall", and a tongue in cheek blog post which is borderline nonsensical. None of those are any basis for an article. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' and clean-up. Perfectly notable subject in theatre and fiction. here's a couple dozen regarding the firth wall and theater and a similar amount with theatre, and 50 regarding books, and film and finally fiction. -- Banjeboi 07:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the addition of extra words, those are still simply google searches. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Those are google book searches which seems to indicate plenty of reliable sources are readily available. We wouldn't be here had the nom done a similar search before taking this to AFD. -- Banjeboi 02:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - My redirect was reverted, my tagging was reverted, my trimming was reverted. I did search (and I actually *gasp* looked at the results!) and it came up dry, I brought up my concerns on the talk page, I gave it some time. No one gave a shit beyond simply reverting to the original research, cruft-laden mess. My only option was AFD. No sources use the term in the context of the article. It's not a widely used phrase in any context as far as I can tell. It fails several policies. And you're here linking to google searches that I've already seen, talking about how I should have taken measures that I took 2 weeks ago. Good work. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have a unique take on collaborating with others so please allow me to show you how others may see your bold editing style. Your first edit was to effectively delete the whole article with a redirect, that was reverted; You then deleted every example presented - which were all reasonably well-written and sourceable to the original media - characterizing them as WP:Cruft and slapping on four tags to the article. Things went downhill from there. Perhaps your vision of what other editors should do with their energy here isn't shared by everyone else. It's interesting to direct volunteer energy but if one truly wants to be a leader you also need to accept that sometimes a leader directing everyone else's work isn't needed. Personally, I would have added {{refimprove}} and simply removed vandalize for the next few months in hopes that the right editor came along and helped the article progress. Sure, it may not have caused as much excitement but we'd likely be in a bit better place. I'll see if I can't add a source or two myself. I really know little about the subject but I'll try. -- Banjeboi 11:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I don't think the topic is a notable phrase/concept. If I wasn't willing to give the article a chance then I would've immediately AFDed it instead of attempting any sort of improvement route. You're still not addressing the fact that the term isn't used anywhere in the context of the article and it doesn't appear to an established phrase in reliable sources in any field. What precisely are you going to write an article about? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outdent. We'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. I've found piles of references that show the term has been widely used at least back into the 1960s and the concept should be clarified to it's usages with arguably the Shakespeare fifth wall book and workshops as an anchor. There's nothing wrong with a good article stating although the phrase has meant different things in various field the theatrical definition remains the most enduring. -- Banjeboi 02:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think any of the current content should remain? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes actually. I think the lede is a bit inaccurate but the article at least suggests the concept and examples in theory can help clarify to our readers who relate to pop culture references. If I were more read up i think I would tweak the lede to state that the concept has been used in various fields but fictional and theatrical usages speak to the theory and practice while design industries trend toward the phrase as a literal "wall' to also be considered when putting together a room - that is a ceiling and a floor can also be considered a fifth wall. -- Banjeboi 01:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the continuing conversation

Unfortunately, I've been adding comments here as well as the article talk page. Which is the preferred forum when an afd debate is current? I've summarized my most recent thoughts there Talk:Fifth_wall . My last thought there was that perhaps this is just another instance of metafictional technique, and as such should be rolled into Metafiction (to the extent that it can coherently be summarized). 'Metafiction' isn't a great article, in my opinion, but may be a better place. On the other hand, it wouldn't stretch sense too much (again, IMO) to have a fifth wall entry, but with little else but the uses we've seen adduced so far (more documentation likely exists, but, it would take more digging). --Skandha101 • 22:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My understanding from what you've written is "this is a real concept, but different from the one described here". My quick troll through online searches makes me think you're right. The problem is, of the several meaning in the academic literature offered, I don't know which one folks are talking about when they say that this is a well known theatre concept. My only advice is to either let this get deleted and recreate it later once you've found good references for a clear concept delineated by experts in the field. Or you can (right now) erase most of what's written there now and replace it with something short, accurate, consistent, and supported by more than a couple of references. If you can find a couple of books or peer-reviewed articles that unquestionably support a single definition, you should rewrite this asap! T L Miles (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to fourth-wall. This article belongs as part of the parent topic and the topic deserves a mention within it. Them From Space 21:49, 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 keep as pure disruption. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Traian Băsescu

Delete and userfy for creators and/or supporting editors, until all attack POV is removed, per BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no clear deletion rationale given. WillOakland (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a bad faith nomination, along with many other nominations by the same user. I reported this to WP:ANI.Biophys (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DESPITE a less than stellar nomination (it has been suggested to me I express myself diplomatically)--it's bad enough that I copied and pasted some lengthy responses. If you're going to propose something for AfD, our last resort, you should do so with care and attention. Besides, you seem to suggest that the article is notable but needs cleanup, removal of POV. That's not a reason for AfD. Still, my opinion is that these articles are not notable and should not be included in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 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 keep as pure disruption. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Harry Reid

Delete and userfy for creators and/or supporting editors, until all attack POV is removed, per BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no clear deletion rationale given. WillOakland (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Harry Reid. The content here is best provided in the context of a well-rounded article on the subject, particularly because he is a living person. The size of the target article does not preclude this and it would allow for a more balanced treatment of the subject. JRP (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No any rationale for deletion was provided by the nominator.Biophys (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Completely valid concept for an article. Needs to be sourced and NPOV, but thats a matter for editors, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:51, 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 speedy keep as pure disruption. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moore controversies

AfDs for this article:

Delete and userfy for creators and/or supporting editors, until all attack POV is removed, per BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Ism schism (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no clear deletion rationale given. WillOakland (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems well sourced to me. POVs are attributed etc. A valid spin out from the main article. --neon white talk 01:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split and Merge into the individual film articles. This article professes to be a Michael Moore criticism, but as it is written now it fails to meet neutrality standards. Also, the current layout of this article suggests that we actually have criticism of Michael Moore's films. As film criticism does not fall prey to BLP concerns, and because these criticisms could make an excellent part of balanced film articles, I believe this should be split up and merged. JRP (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Same as above. I see no reason why individual criticisms can't be merged with their respective film pages. That is the best place for them. Dynablaster (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is they arent all related to films. --neon white talk 02:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All but the hurricane Gustav comments, no? Dynablaster (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so there is a proportion that doesnt overlap. --neon white talk 06:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Completely valid concept for an article. Needs to be/stay sourced and NPOV, but thats a matter for editors, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michael Moore--from there, perhaps, to individual films if that's the topic of discussion. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is a spin out so it's already part of that article. --neon white talk 06:46, 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 keep. Per the speedy closure of the other "Criticism of" article nominated by this person today. Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

AfDs for this article:

Delete and userfy for creators and/or supporting editors, until all attack POV is removed, per BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment attack pov? There's barely a sentence in the entire article which isn't sourced. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment There is material that may be extraneous or could be moved elsewhere but that should be discussed before any afd consideration. MrMurph101 (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another bad faith, pointy nomination by that editor. The article was created as a spinoff from the main article simply due to the amount of material. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - this has been AFD'd no fewer than three other times, and every time it's been kept. Sorry to toss out the faith, but given the nominator's history I question the motivations behind it. Nominator provides no new rationale or other justification that hasn't been covered ad infinitum already. Links:

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 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 keep as pure disruption. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Tony Blair

Delete and userfy for creators and/or supporting editors, until all attack POV is removed, per BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many "Criticism of..." type articles on Wikipedia. See here If you detect POV pushing, simply correct it. Dynablaster (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no clear deletion rationale given. WillOakland (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. sourced and valid spin out from the main article. --neon white talk 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tony Blair. This article as written suffers from severe NPOV problems and would be best served as part of a balanced article on the subject, rather than a topic-specific article. The existing Blair article appears to be formatted in such a way that this merging could be done without too much difficulty. JRP (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No any rationale for deletion was provided by the nominator.Biophys (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Completely valid concept for an article. Needs to be/stay sourced and NPOV, but thats a matter for editors, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--another flawed nomination for deleting an unencyclopedic article. Still, it should go. If we keep it, all keep voters, for the sake of fairness and balance, should write an article called Praise of Tony Blair--these articles attract nay-saying, not real criticism in the way suggested on another one of these nominations, above. They are soapboxes, coatracks, countersinks, deepfryers, etc. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Bulldogs football team (future schedules)

While schedule are a good idea in the individual season articles, this list easily violates WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, especially in the later years as matchups change easily, and WP:NOT#STATS Delete Secret ^account 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious CRYSTAL issues, and Wikipedia isn't a repository of event schedules. Townlake (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can see arguments either way, but this is based on contractual agreements, not some editor peering into a crystal ball. College football is big business, and the future opponents are planned years in advance by the athletic departments at the universities, within limits. And yes, it makes news. Because Georgia has to play the other teams in the SEC East (Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt) and there's a rivalry with Auburn, six of the games are a given; the rest are scheduled years in advance, with a home-and-away in consecutive years against two teams in the SEC West, and four against non-conference opponents with whom contracts are signed. It's not "crystalballing" to say that Georgia has signed a contract with the University of Oregon to play in Eugene and then in Athens in 2015 and 2016. The ink's dry on those deals. Mandsford (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Game contracts are changed all the time. Games move for TV, scheduling conflicts come up (e.g. BYU buying out its game against Arizona State this year so it can play Oklahoma at the Cowboys' new stadium in Dallas)... and the "college football is big business" argument doesn't change the CRYSTAL issue. Plenty of future events are backed up by contracts, but til they occur, they're just plans. Townlake (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is typically the sort of thing Wikipedia doesn't cover. We don't do tv guide listings either. If the sources are reliable, they can be dropped in the external links section of the Georgia Bulldogs article. And Townlake is right too. It might be planned ahead of time, but there's no way to know for sure if the league exists in 7 years time or if the team will even be there. Even from experts, this would be crystal bal gazing. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wikipedia isn't a football schedule -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 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, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though Mandsford makes a valid point or two; there is too much crystal ballery here. However, MGM deserves a troutslap, or perhaps a slap with a big ole' shark, for suggesting that ANYTHING might EVER happen to the SEC. How dare you! Drmies (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard Alabama may drop down to Division II. Has anyone else heard this? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Of all the guides that Wikipedia is not a sporting events guide is one of them. And um...Doctor, You need to check your redirects before you hit save page, I don't think the Securities and Exchange Commission qualified this year...--kelapstick (talk) 05:11, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TheAmazingAtheist

A biography of a YouTuber with pretty basic WP:BLP1E and WP:SBST issues. A guy of no other particular note made a YouTube video, in which he accurately guessed one of the people later involved in the Jokela school shooting. This coincidence was a story for about three days. (References 4-18 in the article span from Nov. 9, 2007 to the 11th, save for one on the 16th.) There's nothing else to say about this person, except that he was interviewed on a blog one time and has a YouTube channel (linked no less than six times in this article). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authors Keep, coverage was widespread in multiple languages in at least 15 articles of which I can find, also satisfies #2 of WP:ENTERTAINER.--Otterathome (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a minor part of a story that made international headlines in Europe, so, yeah, the coverage is going to be multiple languages. It's Europe.
As for WP:ENTERTAINER, I'm not seeing the source that says he has a cult following. Which source is that, or am I looking at the wrong point? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50k subscribers is a large fan base. Ref 4 also says he is prolific.--Otterathome (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in a bit of a hurry, so I'll use WP:ATA even though I hate it. Arbitrary numbers aren't much of a claim of notability when no reliable source has ever taken note of them, and the Wired article only mentions TAA as part of the one story that was the subject of a short burst of stories. This is an attempt to make a biography out of a news event that doesn't really rise to the notability standard for news stories. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't speak a word of Finnish, but something tells me that some of these links are duplicates of a press wire. "YouTube-käyttäjä varoitti netissä Pekka-Eric Auvisen aikeista jo kesäkuussa, kirjoittaa amerikkalainen aikakauslehti Wired" is the lead of this, this, this, and this. I need to take a closer look at the German sources since I do know a bit; Der Spiegel is certainly good but intern.de smells like a scraper. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, but rewrite and/or move to better subject~~ It's a topic that has coverage. The sources aren't unreliable from what I can see at a glance. This page just needs to be cleaned and repaired. I can't think of a policy, or even guideline, that would qualitfy deletion. Tealwisp (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I linked two in the first sentence of my deletion rationale. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to jokela school shooting Thinking about where one might move this to, I think the information is best put under the school shooting's page. Tealwisp (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:SBST or merge with Jokela school shooting and/or Internet vigilantism (unless there's somewhere better?) -- samj _in ^out 16:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Above user is vote spamming.--Otterathome (talk) 17:04, 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, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. A nonnotable youtube "celebrity". Ugh. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Caspian blue 06:55, 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 no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amey Pandya

Child actor with no reliable sources indicating notability. Only sources given are an IMDB page and the person's own website. Even if all of the claims on the article can be supported using reliable third party sources the individual would not have had a career significant enough for a Wikipedia article at this time, as significant roles in significant productions are required. Was prodded, but prod was removed by an editor with a long history of removing prods for no justification. DreamGuy (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable actor lacking references to support notability. Awards not supported via Google available hits. ttonyb1 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least one reference supports the awards [50] and the kid's own website points to several reliable sources that discuss him. [51] - Mgm|^(talk) 00:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tackle this article tomorrow if enough of the sources are in English. Anyone who wants to help is welcome. (Side note: I'm trying to get a WikiProject Children off the ground. I'd like to ask anyone who is interested in that to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals) - Mgm|^(talk) 00:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The references in the actor's website are not valid URL's and the reference to the ABBY award in [52] is not valid - see ABBY 2006 results for the actual winners. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying anyone should use the actor's website directly. But by dropping the titles and publication names with dates in LexisNexis for example, it is possible to get the actual published article and verify it. As for the awards. It could easily be a mixup. A couple of days ago (in 2009) I saw someone win a 2008 award. It could simply be a naming thing gone wrong. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, he's enough of a star to be chosen as part of a jury panel.[53] His film and tv roles are harder to judge because I have no indication of the importance of said roles. The English spelling and grammar errors in the Indian media aren't helping. As for the ABBY. It appears that the ad won it and not him specifically. I'll be looking into the other award mentions. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have found atleast one source other then IMDB and his own website for a dance competition he was in last year. I will look for more sources. Deavenger (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has appeared in many films, TV commercials, television series, and reality show. Links added to the article.--Ekabhishek (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP if he was an american/hollywood child actor, we would ~~not be having this debate~~ quite possibly be having this debate, but the page would almost certainly end up being kept.. he has a respectable credit list, he's on imdb, if you google his name, you get credible results for him on web, image, and video searches. he's known in the community of people who follow bollywood films. deleting would be a STRONG CULTURAL BIAS, there are a very large number of wikip articles about minor english-speaking actors, who worked in the USA and/or the UK (& yes i know about the perils of justifying one wikip article's existence with the existence of another, but the point is fair in this case: wikip has a policy of allowing articles on relatively minor actors; in practice, that policy is biased in favour of english-speaking performers who work in western countries, then non-english speaking actors/artists in developed, "western" countries, then the "3rd world"; compare the amount of material english wikip has on hollywood and bollywood. there is an order-of-magnitude difference) either we allow articles on minor actors/performers, or we don't. if we do, then KEEP. if we don't, then i know a few dozen afd's right now, same justification. i have even edited on a few of them :P Lx 121 (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

follow-up: did anybody cross-check on say, the hindi wikip (or other south asian & area languages)? i can't read the script(s), but if somebody who can would do so, it would be germane to this discussion to know if the subject is covered on other language wikip's, especially those for indian/southasian languages. it would also be nice to have the language links on the article itself Lx 121 (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability - the article sources provide little more than guff. Eusebeus (talk) 18:04, 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, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:15, 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. Since evidence of competing in the 2008 Olympics has now been provided and added to the article, the initial reasons to delete no longer apply. Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Jiskra

Importance as "elite athlete" asserted but notability under WP:ATHLETE not proven. Banyan Tree 13:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A3, it has enough explanation to avoid an A1 deletion, but the lack of content means it's simply not informative in an encyclopedic manner. Articles are not placeholders. Anyone who wants to create a detailed wouldn't be hindered if this is gone since it's the first they'd write themselves. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Competed, and reached the quarter-finals, at the European Championships[54]. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. - Shannon Rose (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He competed at the Beijing Olympics as documented here. This fully meets WP:ATHLETE as he is competing at the highest level of his sport. -- Whpq (talk) 20:35, 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 00:15, 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. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum bogodynamics

AfDs for this article:

No reliable sources demonstrating notability for a Wikipedia article. It's fine that somebody somewhere made a joke about something, or that some people repeated it, but that doesn't mean it gets a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite surprisingly there is an actual journal article discussing the impact of computer speak on the English language (including the term "quantum bogodynamics"). "Bogosity" (a redirect) appears 50+ times in Google Scholar (including one from the 1950s). Google Books provides three more sources demonstrating usage of "quantum bogodynamics". – 74 02:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Google Books shows multiple copies of FOLDOC, the source upon which this article was directly based, all but two of which are the entirely unreliable Websters Quotations, Facts, and Phrases (for the second time here at AFD in as many days), and a novel, which isn't a source at all. The journal article, unsurprisingly, doesn't document any such thing as quantum bogodynamics. Its coverage of the subject amounts to exactly 4 words: "such as ‘quantum bogodynamics’". It does document the propensity of on-line computer programming communities to create neologisms, such as "quantum bogodynamics". And the other Google Scholar hits aren't even about either quantum bogodynamics or bogosity. The 1954 article is about economics, in fact. Counting Google hits, even Google Scholar hits, isn't research. Uncle G (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. I specifically excluded the multiple copies of "Webster's" whatevers. Ignoring those, we have three books using the term. You might claim that they are unreliable (and you are probably at least half-right) but they still show that the term has entered usage. As to the journal article, I don't have access to read it, so I don't know how accurate your assessment of its coverage is. – 74 05:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nonetheless, those three books, as I said, comprise two more copies of FOLDOC, and a novel, which isn't a source. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't document terms that "have entered usage". This is an encyclopaedia, and articles only exist if the people, places, events, concepts, or things denoted by the terms have been documented. An article on bogosity or quantum bogodynamics requires that the subjects of bogosity and quantum bogodynamics have been documented, not that someone has merely uttered the word somewhere in a treatise on (say) economics. So far, you have cited zero sources actually documenting this subject, but instead are simply counting Google hits that match a word or phrase. Counting Google hits is not research. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So sorry, I must've wandered into Articles for Research instead of Articles for Deletion. The *published* copies of FOLDOC that you so hastily dismiss do indeed provide definitions, as does the Jargon file reference already in the article. You can argue they aren't independent (but WP:N states Independent "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject", which these are not), you can argue that they aren't reliable (one is published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, which bypasses self-published accusations), or you can spout random nonsense and insult me; at this point I really don't care. Have fun. – 74 19:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Doing the research is a necessary component of AFD. You aren't doing it. You're counting occasions where a word or phrase is mentioned as if they are sources, when upon examination they turn out to say nothing at all about any relevant subject. As I said, the article from the 1950s that you were so happy to hold up as evidence was about economics. Had you done the research that is required of you by our policies, and actually read the source, you would have known this. You didn't even need to read very far beyond the title and first paragraph. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The Jargon File is a reliable source for hacker slang and jokes, and this has an entry there. The rest are apparently either copies of the Jargon File entry (FOLDOC, "Websters" Quotations etc) or trivial references (the journal article described above). We need multiple independent non-trivial references to establish notability, and as I don't see anything non-trivial that is independent of the Jargon File definition. Consider this a keep if any additional independent sources are described. JulesH (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Jargon that is simply not notable enough for its own article. Covered elsewhere. Waste of space. Proxy User (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 74. Also, an edu search returns a few results http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/swil/archives/Misc_Works/mitjargonfile/hacker3.txt http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/english/QU/QUANTUM+BOGODYNAMICS.html http://web.cacs.louisiana.edu/~mgr/450/burks/foldoc/63/13.htm http://web.cacs.louisiana.edu/~mgr/450/burks/foldoc/37/95.htm .Smallman12q (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you've found 4 more copies of FOLDOC, 3 of which are clearly marked as such in their URLs. It has been copied a lot around the WWW. You've also found one copy of this very Wikipedia article, clearly marked as such with a direct hyperlink back to it, which isn't a source at all, of course. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 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, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of sources have been found already: both academic and pop-culture. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly one source, the same FOLDOC article over and over, has been found. It is taken from an identical Jargon File entry. As a self-styled collection of slang and in-jokes, that's not exactly superbly reliable. Are we aiming to be an accurate encyclopaedia, based upon reliable sources that document their subjects seriously, and so can be trusted to be accurate and truthful? Or are we to become yet another computer slang joke book, yet another FOLDOC mirror? (If the latter, why? Clearly, the world isn't short of them.) Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW, "Websters Online Dictionary" and " Websters Quotations, Facts, and Phrases" seem to be 2 faces of the same source.DGG (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources provided don't really discuss the term Quantum bogodynamics in a meaningful enough way to establish notability for neologism.Nrswanson (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G and nrswanson.Inmysolitude (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There doesn't seem to be no significant coverage as required by WP:NOTE. And I'm doubtful about the reliability of the sources as well.--Sloane (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We need substantial coverage in reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:47, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wilson Smith

Article about a nonnotable actor and the three "references" in the article are not reliable sources at all. Very little can be found about him through a google search and he is nonexistant in the news. The in-depth coverage about him required by WP:N, and WP:BLP can not be found. Themfromspace (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a search for the soap credit turns up a total of five mentions of the character he plays, which certainly goes a long way to supporting the nom's assertions. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:41, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable bio; could have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn per BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 23:39, 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. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Miles

I just declined a speedy on this one but I'm bringing it here as I am not convinced that Kathryn passes the notability test either as an author or as an academic. Nancy ^talk 18:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas copyvio of her web site, [55] . Her book is just out, )from a minor but not vanity publisher) and may yet become notable, but at present worldcat shows only 9 holdings, and then a proper article can be written from scratch. DGG (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the copyvio - well spotted! I have removed the cut-and-paste sections & the remainder makes sense on its own so I think we're OK to let this AFD run its course. Nancy ^talk 08:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As shown by DGG, does not meet WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 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, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and DGG. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of reliable sources demonstrating that she passes WP:PROF. A Bark Magazine notable book is something, I suppose, but it's not really enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 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 merge to Brooklet, Georgia. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklet Peanut Festival

Prod was contested on the grounds that for this event to have been held annually for 20 years is enough to make it notable. If that were the case, then I should create an article about my family's annual Christmas party. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, no notability nor significant coverage. Lets drink Tea 23:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brooklet, Georgia. The festival appears to be a significant part of the town culture as it has a page on the town site. Coverage is sparse but not non-existent so we can satisfy verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and Redirect to Brooklet, Georgia. References are verifiable. Festival is notable within its region, but if consensus is to merge to Brooklet, Georgia per Whpq, then that would also be acceptable with a redirect. Unionsoap (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination argument is completely inadequate, does not support the AfD in any way. Proxy User (talk) 06:26, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brooklet, Georgia. Verifiable, but not notable outside of the area, or not notable by itself. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 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. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street

While the conclusions of the article may be noteworthy, the fact that some blogs picked up on it does not really confer notability upon it. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not totally sure of the reasons for nominating? From what I can make out you are suggesting that if a subject is blogged, it automatically removes any notability? Please consider re-wording the nom for clarity. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, what I'm saying is that the claim for notability - that the article was blogged - doesn't really make it notable. The external links are all either blogs or opinion pieces. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Probably also fails WP:WEB otherwise known as "Wikipedia is not a web directory". --Sc straker (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cover stories are not inherently notable and there is already an article about the formula. WillOakland (talk) 20:29, 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 00:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. T-95 (talk) 01:54, 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 keep as pure disruption. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 12:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of process, I, an admin, concur with this closure. Stifle (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of George W. Bush

AfDs for this article:

Delete and userfy for creators and/or supporting editors, until all attack POV is removed, per BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Passes WP:WELLKNOWN with flying colours. Also, given that, "According to an August 2008 poll, 41% of Americans consider Bush to be the worst President of all time," the absence of this article would be glaring. If anyone has done enough to warrant a "criticism of" article, it would be Bush. (In contrast, a similar aticle about Obama--which, interestingly, the same nominator put up for restoration at WP:DRV--would be horribly premature. So, to quote this very same nominator, "Criticisms are not inherently negative, they are critiques from differing perspectives - and many of these perspectives are notable. I would continue to work on the article, edit it, and make it more presentable.") Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
VERY strong delete. This is a blatant disregard for Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If this article gets to stand, I am going to get together a team of conservative Wikipedians and we are going to write a "Criticism of Barack Hussein Obama" article, and I am going to quote the keeping of this article as the reason for its creation. Thank you. -Axmann8 (Talk) 11:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete While I understand the value this may have, it looks like an inherently POV topic, and a fork of Public perception of George W. Bush. In my opinion that article is where this material belongs.... We already have an article on the public perceptions of the Bush presidency. Why are we creating another one for the express purpose of criticism? --Pstanton (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Merge and delete" is not an option, because merged articles must be kept, but are usually shortened into redirects, so that the histories of their contents can be preserved (see WP:MERGE). Perhaps you mean "merge and redirect"? Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Contributors to this topic should be aware of:

[56] - list of "Criticism of..." articles on Wikipedia
The not-totally-unconnected Deletion Review for Criticism of Barack Obama.

There are lots of implications and subtexts here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I said in the Barack Obama DRV, I think there's a case for "Criticism of..." articles on Wikipedia where the criticism itself is voluminous enough to be notable—but I think they need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oddly, the nominator of both this AfD and the Obama DRV appears to realize this, even going so far as to say, "Wikipedia articles about critism are non uncommon, and we should AGF that they are evolving towards constructive and informative articles." It would be most interesting to find out why he's ignoring his own reasoning in this case. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and repurpose to Assessments of George W. Bush and include all types of assessments, good bad or indifferent. The current material is important, needs to be kept in WP somewhere, is likely too big and/or specialized for the current GWB articles, but "Criticism of ..." articles are inherently a bad idea both in theory and in practice. Public perception of George W. Bush is focused on polling and similar metrics, properly so I think, and should not try to absorb all this. Hence what I propose. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no clear deletion rationale given. For heaven's sake, there's a whole industry around this. How can anyone doubt its significance? WillOakland (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nomination is indeed very vague, and doesn't point to any specific "attack POV" whatsoever. And if the nominator feels that such POV is present, then why doesn't he take his own advice and "continue to work on the article, edit it, and make it more presentable"? A very strange nomination, to say the least. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No any rationale for deletion was provided by the nominator.Biophys (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what Cosmic Latte and WillOakland said.SPNic (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad faith, pointy, sour grapes nomination. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really? Then why is Criticism of Barack Obama protected from creation? Also, please assume good faith. JustGettingItRight (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has forfeited good faith already. And maybe it's prevented because he's only been President for 2 months, not 8 years. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Completely valid concept for an article. Needs to be/stay sourced and NPOV, but thats a matter for editors, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw this at CAT:CSD and declined a speedy. But we really do need a general discussion of the concept behind these articles -- which I think is good -- and the manner of their execution, which tends to be somewhat questionable. DGG (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I've copied and pasted above, despite my desire to agree with DGG as a general rule. In a nutshell: "Criticism of X" is not a good topic in its own right, in my opinion. I mean, I have plenty of criticism of W., but the operative word (letter) there is "W." And I would say the same for Criticism of Obama, BTW. Or O'Reilly. Or Emeril. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:SS: "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place." This is an appropriate daughter article, without which the properly encyclopedic discussion of criticism of Bush would overwhelm the main Bush bio. JamesMLane t c 04:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a President with a reasonable history/length of time in service this is appropriate. BLP is not a reason to delete such a page; it's a reason and tool to police it's contents. rootology (C)(T) 05:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a very notable article, deletion reason is vague and unspecified. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but policy must be uniform Criticism of Barack Obama should be unprotected from recreation (I believe semi-protection would be OK). Wikipedia is getting hammered in the press for perceived disparities between our treatment of George W. Bush and Barack Obama Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Wikipedia', report claims - Guardian (UK). Of course, WP:UNDUE and WP:V must be observed, but full protection over public criticism of President of the United States? JustGettingItRight (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: SALT to expire on Barack Obama after this AFD is over, pending a keep decision. JustGettingItRight (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge you to name, right here and now, the top 5 criticisms you would post in an Obama criticism article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not a dueling ground where you need to challenge people "right here and now". I don't have the time to create any article, much less write the Criticism of Barack Obama article. However, I would guess there is substantial information to be written on criticism over the stimulus package and 2009 budget, over Obama's health care proposals (or lack thereof), over the proposed mortgage bailout, over Tim Geithner's handling of the continuing financial and banking crisis as Treasury secretary, over closing down Guantanamo, over allegedly talking down the economy, and (from the left) over continuing support of Bush administration legal positions regarding alleged terrorists. You have some peripheral criticisms as well, including criticism from the British press over the reception of Gordon Brown and criticism during the 2008 campaign of his admitted prior cocaine use (Bush's alcoholism is included in his article). There's a lot of good material that can be written by a dedidicated editor. BTW, as a COI disclaimer, I did vote for Obama in the 2008 election and I currently somewhat approve of his performance. JustGettingItRight (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every President has critics and criticism, much of which is simply partisan bickering. In his victory speech in St.Paul, upon clinching the votes needed for nomination, everything Obama said was what I would call the "liberal agenda". If the critics are yelping because he's a liberal, that's irrelevant - it was a known fact going in. If he has reneged on anything he said he would do or try to do, now you've got something worth criticising. The concern is that a "criticism" article will become yet another lightning rod for an already-difficult situation. However, someone could always try writing one in a user sub-page and get some opinions on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evey President has critics, which is why I voted keep (I think you voted keep as well). I see some portions of this article, that while sourced and not necessarily false, really aren't criticisms in themselves and I see some synthesis in violation of WP:SYN. But errors in an article are not reason to delete an article. Criticisms stemming from ideology may be notable and this article has several instances of some criticisms stemming from ideological differences. I don't think its policy of the project to have the article creation done on a user page, especially considering that would stifle collaboration. If anything, a work in progress that an editor does not want to publish should be put on the article discussion page. That being said, I think any stub would have to have enough information on it not to get speedily deleted. I don't think one sentence saying, "There is criticism of Barack Obama. This is a stub." is acceptable. I think if editors on these politically charged articles will take a step back and consider, how is the information I'm adding to an article encyclopedic, they'll inevitably will have edits that are notable, accurate, neutral, and objective. JustGettingItRight (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: this AfD is pure disruption from Obama trolls. While I'd love for this article to go, I will not validate any attempt to use this article as a justification for the existence of an article for Obama when one already exists. Please also note that there's a merge discussion on the talk page for it to be merged to Public perception of George W. Bush. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is too long to merged into the main Bush article and a merge discussion to another article is in progress. Spinning this off into its own page was a valid application of WP:SPLITTING. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 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 redirect to Ithaca City School District. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Isabella Sherman

The one reference provided is the website of Sherman's home county's local historical society. Clearly she was known and appreciated within her immediate community for the quality and longevity of her service as a schoolteacher, but she doesn't seem to have any WP:Notability beyond that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —94.196.171.246 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —94.196.171.246 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we happen to have an article on the related school? If we do, this can be merged in. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Largo Plazo summarizes the situation well. Indeed, a caring teacher who was deservedly honored, but who passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Merging into a related article would be an option, as noted by Mgm.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:37, 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 00:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ithaca City School District per WP:BIO1E. I'll add a note to that article now about the name, with a link to the source. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As proposed by Mgm and David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (redirect) with some other article. I salute her, but sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlumdogAramis (talk • contribs) 20:53, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aneurin Barnard

Delete nn actor, fails WP:ENTERTAINER Mayalld (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He played a lead role in a London West End musical which is the British equivalent of Broadway. ("spring+awakening"_"aneurin+barnard" any of these sources confirm it) - Mgm|^(talk) 23:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, the sources say that the musical will transfer to the West End next week, so as of today he hasn't played a lead role. Also, WP:ENTERTAINER requires multiple roles in notable productions. Mayalld (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The time thing is a technicality. The production will have moved by the time this AFD is closed. Also, multiple notable roles is just one criterion that one can apply. If he meets WP:GNG we can still have the article even if he has just one role. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, 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 00:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received significant recent press coverage. MuffledThud (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:Creative. None of his roles in TV have been "significant roles". Untick (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does meet WP:ENTERTAINER: "...significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." He's got press coverage cited in the article as the lead role in stage performances. MuffledThud (talk) 06:04, 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. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud marketing

Speedy Delete Non-notable unverifiable neologism created by employee of SharedVue Marketing Technologies who are mentioned a number of times in the article (WP:SPAM, WP:SOAP, WP:COI). Only relevant reference is a self-published source. -- samj _in ^out 20:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much per nom, marketing neologisms like this should turn up on the news more than this one does. Themfromspace (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A coatrack article serving as a vehicle for spam. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 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 00:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom mainly. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:42, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Boozer Challenge

Mere directory listing information; no substantive content. Wikipedia is not a book catalog aggregator. The Anome (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot unearth any evidence of notability for this book. Nancy ^talk 15:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Google News search turns up indications that the LA Times reviewed it. The New York Times was interested enough to cover it. - Whpq (talk) 17:42, 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 00:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple reviews and coverage at that time, but should be expanded. 7triton7 (talk) 05:08, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad for democracy

Consists solely of very brief book blurb and excerpts from reviews. Essentially all of the content is taken from non-free sources, and is either quoted directly from the author of the book, or from book reviews on Amazon. Wikipedia is not a place to dump Amazon book listings. The Anome (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being badly formatted and disorganized from a new user is not an excuse to delete an article mentioned in at least [57][58][59]. Only one link is generally thorough enough but there's some news out there and that's only a few minutes of research. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 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 00:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since this book seems to be plenty notable. I have removed two blurbs from the article and added two articles (one mentioned above) and an editorial by the author. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first step would be to try to establish an article on the author, since earlier books by the author seem to be significant. . The discussions mentioned are either interviews with the author or columns by the author. I have so far not found any additional reviews. The phrase has been used a lot, in various similar contexts, by many others. WorldCat shows 225 libraries so far, which is sufficient to establish the book as helping the authors notability, but borderline for a book in the absence of third party reviews. DGG (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I see your point. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 22 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, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough per Drmies' links... also we shouldn't be deleting articles that are so new before they have had time to improve. Concur that the author should have an article too. Gigs (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable, containing several secondary sources, sure, I agree that we need an article on the author, but there is no reason this article can't remain here, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:21, 27 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) 11:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SGH-X495

Non-notable commercial product. Unreferenced OR, reads like an advertisement. Mikeblas (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I cleaned up the advertisement like text. I can't say I know anything about the notabilty guidelines for products so I have no opinion on where to go from here. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone finds significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, to satisfy notability. Edison (talk) 19:04, 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 00:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Edison. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—StaticVision (talk) 10:42, 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 00:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benron

Contested prod for neologism dicdef. Term is an apparent play on Enron and the phrase "been wrong". Search engine test finds many individuals and businesses using this name but shows no signs term is commonly used as indicated by the article. Given citation appears to be false as there is no book listed at WorldCat with the indicated ISBN and search by title and author finds books published in 1992 and 2005 but nothing for the indicated year of 1999. Delete as per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and Wikipedia:Complete bollocks unless reliable sources available to members of the general public are provided to allow for verification of the article subject. --Allen3 ^talk 14:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If a neologism like this would be notable one would at least expect some press coverage about it, yet it is absent from Google news. Themfromspace (talk) 17:13, 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 00:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obscure neologism. Majoreditor (talk) 01:52, 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 00:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buyasta

Two-man software project with no evidence of notability. Mintrick (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. I can't find any reliable, third-party sources that actively discuss this piece of software, not on Google or Google news. Themfromspace (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Themfromspace. -- samj _in ^out 16:19, 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, 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 00:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verne E. Rupright

A mayor of a town of 5000 people with no other political credentials doesn't constitute notability. He only has an article as one of his predecessors was Sarah Palin, and I expect all major news coverage of him will be in respect to this. Computerjoe 's talk 17:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —94.196.206.70 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —94.196.206.70 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree completely with the nominator, this is only because of Palin, and notability is not inherited. Dianne M. Keller, John Stein (mayor), List of mayors of Wasilla, Alaska and Category:Mayors of Wasilla, Alaska are all just window dressing, created after Palin came to national attention. We shouldn't list every small town mayor in the United States, Palin didn't have an article until she became governor. It's interesting to note that the Anchorage Daily News actually ran a story about how nobody really cared about the election that brought him to office [60]. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tumbleweed delete the corollary of the snowball delete... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Merely being the mayor of a town a governor or VP candidate is from/was mayor of doesn't grant notability. So unless someone puts forward an independent basis of notability, I'll have to go with delete. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:10, 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 02:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let Them Hear Foundation

An article about a nonnotable organization that fails WP:ORG as there is not any "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" to be found. Name-drops are common on google but none of the sources analyze the foundation itself in any detail. The foundation hasn't made the news at all nor has it been the subject of major academic studies. Themfromspace (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:44, 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, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:40, 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 00:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, no significant coverage Lets drink Tea 02:53, 22 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 00:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Gani Asyik

Not notable, clearly fails WP:N Guy0307 (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Some modest hits in google scholar [61], but I don't think they demonstrate passing WP:PROF, a google search turns up no evidence of passing WP:N. The article itself contains no WP:RS to support WP:V. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, many linguists cite him: this and this. Seulimeung (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this and this. Seulimeung (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you need to work these into the article if they're so worthwhile... SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Pete Hurds analysis of Asyik's modest impact. The four links given by Seulimeung are to a newslist (2x, not a WP:RS), one article citing Asyik, and the index of another journal publishing Asyik. None of this comes even close to establishing notability (even if we would consider the newslist a RS). --Crusio (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-start and or refactor - no attempt has been made to alert the Indonesian project on this SatuSuro 13:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no need to alert the Indonesian wiki project. This clearly fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Guy0307 (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if that was applied across Afd there would be a clear misconstruction of what Afd is about - even if it is a snowjob in the eyes of the nominator it makes no allowances for different opinions from project participants to actually see what is happening to their articles - also left similar comment at nominators talk. SatuSuro 01:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be fine in a controversial AfD. However, this article even fails WP:CSD#A7. Guy0307 (talk) 02:04, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is at least more accomplished than the article stated prior to the relist – he has a Ph.D. – but that's about all that I can find to say about him, and that's far from enough to pass WP:PROF. As Seulimeung states, one can find citations to his work — this journal article (PDF) is a better example than the forum posts Seulimeung links to — but while it does say good things about his work, there are not enough citations of this type that I can find to demonstrate significant impact per WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete because I am wondering whether even this amount of work does not make him notable in as narrow a subject as this. DGG (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Satu Suro 01:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as there appears to be a consensus from those who have commented here I feel that it is the position of an WP Indonesia editor to be on the record at least to show my usual cynical disbelief in the over-reliance of google checks as having any credibility whatsoever in non english speaking subject areas - and even further when it comes to something like Acehnese (or any region of Indonesia) professionals being deleted with such fervour. If one checks the general state of non english speaking project/subjects areas - it is so easy to wander in and find examples of 'universal' notions of This clearly fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PROF, - and yet in some cases the individuals or subjects are in fact notable - but not in the broader terms of a universal global sense - what if he happens to be the only academic who is actually doing what he is doing? - I really think that regional/project voices in such debates are drowned out too easily when it comes to these sort of Afd's Satu Suro 01:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. In addition to the points made above by Pete.Hurd, Crusio and David Eppstein, the subject's most widely held book in libraries, Sistem perulangan bahasa Gayo, is currently in less than 16 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:35, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Asian Banker

Borderline, but the fake interwiki links are always a bad sign. Probably fails WP:CORP. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:46, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Based on the following web searches:

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

the subjects appear to have enough coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, however I think The Asian Banker Journal should probably be merged into The Asian Banker. PhilKnight (talk) 14:25, 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 00:09, 22 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, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PhilKnight. There do seem to be sources to establish notability for all three articles, or alternatively, they could be conflated into one article. Sources do need to be added though. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:18, 27 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 00:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bendale Business and Technical Institute shooting

The article lacks noteworthyness MoRsE (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS as lacking historical notability. Quoted from Wikipedia:Notability#Notability requires objective evidence: "It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." Almost all of the sources are from the day of the shooting and there does not seem to be continuing coverage of the event beyond September 2008 (Google News - 2008 archives). Also, if I've understood the article correctly, then this was not a school shooting per se, but simply a crime that took place on school grounds. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP. At that time, the event was notable and there are sources to back that up.A google search will show a number of good results.See the video at Video and also in the papers. Smallman12q (talk) 20:26, 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, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local, next-day coverage would make virtually every shooting, city council meeting, snowstorm, supermarket opening, walk-a-thon, etc. "notable". At best, this would be wikinews. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was picked up by several national newspapers, which are cited in the article. I see no reason to delete it. Jwray (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not intrinsically notable, and when newspapers pick up a non-notable event we find some excuse not to include it-- NOT NEWS if nothing better will serve. Essentially, for notability someone has to be killed--1 person as a minimum, usually , based on previous afds, 3 or more. That seems to be the custom. Perhaps our basic concept of an encyclopedia does not seem to have ever been thought out very well. DGG (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT#NEWS. Eusebeus (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not convinced this is non-notable but notability as yet is not presented. Was this the most famous shooting? The first? Did it result in some major overhaul of criminal proceedings regarding firearms? Absent that I would suggest merging to any article about school shootings in Canada or similar. -- Banjeboi 07:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:51, 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 keep. From the discussion, it is apparent that this is a cleanup issue. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop culture and Islam

This looks more like a list of Muslim rappers, with a bit of original research tacked onto the beginning, and actually says nothing about the purported topic, "Hip Hop culture and Islam". Biruitorul ^Talk 18:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:LISTCRUFT. JamesBurns (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable topic; the introduction of Islam in the African-American Experience has an entire section entitled "Islam and Hip Hop Culture", and Muslim Networks From Hajj to Hip Hop by Miriam Cooke and Bruce Lawrence has an entire chapter on the subject. Also, The Five Percenters: Islam, Hip Hop and the Gods of New York by Michael Muhammad Knight looks like a book that would have substantial coverage of the subject. This article needs editing and improvement, not deletion. DHowell (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The article needs to establish the importance of links between Muslims and Hip Hop by expanding the opening paragraphs with appropriate citations. Otherwise it is merely another redundant list of random entries.Isabelle 67 (talk) 16:32, 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) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator and with JamesBurns' observation, and would add that the list is unreferenced and does not cite the music scene in any Islamic nation. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Article appears to be a notable topic. Definitely needs sourcing though. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 03:00, 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 00:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V-Day Montréal

Subject doesn't appear to be notable at all. It concerns a very small organisation who only seem put on a play for just one week per year in Montreal and then do nothing else. V-day already has its own article if there's any useful content it should be merged with that.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Shakehandsman (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete Doesn't seem notable but perhaps it can be merged. Basket of Puppies 07:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: The two secondary sources 1 2 are articles about V-day in itself, not V-Day Montréal. So V-Day Montréal does not meet the general criteria for notabilty. Doesn't look like there is any useful information, so just a redirect would be fine. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely if we redirect the name of every single local branch of every organsiation there are gonna be an awful lot of redirects? Maybe that isn't such a bad thing, though seems unnecessary.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:45, 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 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok I've considered all the above I think we should just delete it.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:58, 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 redirect to International Boxing Organization. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Daddono

The organisation he founded is (perhaps) notable, but there's no evidence from reliable sources that he himself is notable. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to International Boxing Organization. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, 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 00:01, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birchmount Road

Same as Midland Avenue. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability; Wikipedia is not a directory. JohnCD (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fully realising that personal attestation is not a reliable source, I have driven Birchmount Road many times, and indeed, even worked at an establishment on the road. Thre's really nothing particularly notable about the road. A search on Google Books trying to find anything that might be of historic interest that would lend notability to the Road turns up nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 21:28, 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, 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 09:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Hiscott

The subject falls a long way short of meeting WP:BIO or any other notability requirement. The subject has no significant coverage in reliable sources. Being a partner of The Printing Press (a small, local print firm) offers nothing notable and The Library Theatre Ltd manages 4 unique GHits. Nuttah (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is unreferenced, and with the lack of significant coverage this fails WP:BIO. —Snigbrook 21:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I can't see how any of the accomplishments or jobs this person has held meet any element of WP:N. Neither is there much coverage of this person. See that the Ghits are almost entirely Wikis. She gets zero News ghits. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 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. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Renaissance Show (Radio Show)

Previously in October 2008: no consensus. Radio show with three half-hour episodes and no evidence of notability. Being broadcast on the BBC is not sufficient to provide notability. StarM 00:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 00:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 00:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see anything that would meet WP:NME#Programming. No google news hits, only 25 non-duplicate results in main google, many of which are dupes of this wiki page. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable show, insufficient coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 00:31, 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 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of notability show, cannot verify material. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 02:56, 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. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Germinario

Based on the following web search:

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

there appears to be insufficient reliable sources independent of the subject to comply with the notability guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be a puff piece, written by the subject (judging by the username). No independent sources to meet N. --Ged UK 17:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is not established. Reads as if it was written by the subject also. ₳dam Zel 17:30, 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, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot verify material, also big WP:COI and WP:WEASEL issues as well. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 02:56, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Basketball League

Basketball League that never got up the ground, no sources that I could find to meet WP:ORG, and the only information i found on Google the website is states is undercontruction, wikipedia, it's mirrors, minor promotional material in local sports websites, and some minor high school league in Pennsylvania Delete Secret ^account 21:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a league that has yet to get off the ground. There is scant coverage about this league. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 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) 23:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. No remarkable coverage. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 02:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:41, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Dreher 2

[1] Catching Up with Myspace Music, CNet, March 11, 2009

[2] CD Sales Drop, Digital Downloads on the Rise, ZDNet, March 17, 2009

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student Prank}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshall Islands national football team}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newshouse}}