Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 21: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
mNo edit summary
adding afd
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowbird}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal treatment in rodeo}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal treatment in rodeo}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double double coffee}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double double coffee}}

Revision as of 09:34, 21 March 2009

< 20 March 22 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Yellow Warbler. yandman 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowbird

Yellowbird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence this Australian band is notable (Note: not to be confused with a US band of the same name on the Arbor Records label). Many of the claims appear to be unverifiable eg. the claim one of their song is being used by MTV, shows no sign of being proven [1]. One non-charting EP, nothing else to date. Google returning mostly wikimirrors, MySpace and blogs. JoannaMinogue (talk) 09:28, 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. per WP:SNOW; feel free to revert if you disagree with me (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animal treatment in rodeo

AfDs for this article:
    Animal treatment in rodeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    "This entire article is an instance of undue weight and needs to be deleted as a WP:COATRACK." (See article talk page on this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttermilk1950 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. This is a legitimate topic for which a lot of reliable sources could be found. The article may need to be written in a different tone to achieve NPOV, and some more information could be added about what the industry regards as attempts to improve animal welfare, but that's no reason to delete. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This article was started as a very biased article by the nominator, but once other editors started to weigh in and a more balanced article started to emerge, the article is nominated for deletion, I only can guess because it is not reflecting his/her specific bias any more. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 07:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've dumped a fair amount of energy into working with the original author of this article and I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet. (the user still owes me a donut) It's still possible a keeper can be dug out of what's there now... give it some time and see where things stand in a week or two. This (self) nomination is probably too early. ++Lar: t/c 07:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep First WP:NPOV issues are not a reason for deletion. The article is clearly not a coatrack, it sticks the subject and nothing else. Therefore the reasons for nomination appear unsound. --neon white talk 11:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per Kim van der Linde and Neon white's reasons. Article is in need of work to get the sourcing and content to Wiki standards. Bidgee (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep That's a very good article. If there's an WP:NPOV issue it must be addressed but certainly not by deleting the article. Laurent (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There's the makings of a decent article here. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge back to rodeo this is a well-written pov fork. Mystache (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is a notable topic in itself. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Presently NPOV, but redeemable. The topic deserves its own article. --David Iberri (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and cleanup– it seems like a valid spinout for its own article, not to mentioned reliably sourced. Some NPOV/questionable sourcing could be ironed out, but overall it seems OK for its own article. MuZemike 00:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but fix the NPOV issues and give it an encyclopedic tone. Appropriate spinoff from the rodeo article. Montanabw(talk) 04:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep With the work done on this, a Strong Keep. The topic describes a movement of organisations and individuals who oppose the continuation of this sport, which if you've ever hung out with vegetarians, you know is an active and notable movement (regardless of people's views of the rightness or wrongness). It would be unwieldy in the extreme to try an merge this back into Rodeo (currently at 38,494 bytes), and most of the organisations or individuals involved may not be individually notable enough for their own articles. Certainly, the reasons given in the nom carry no weight. Other reasons for deletion come up against the common weakness of a false presupposition that any article ABOUT people with a POV, MUST be POV itself. T L Miles (talk) 18:35, 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 redirect to Double-double (disambiguation). Xclamation point 00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Double double coffee

    Double double coffee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:OR, provides no sources. May also fail WP:NOTE . — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 07:07, 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. yandman 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jake Brown (musician)

    Jake Brown (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This musician, who is probably writing his autobiography, lacks notability. Two of the external links are MySpace pages; one is for some company; and one is from a magazine that specialises in profiling MySpace bands. He'll have to break out of the MySpace world before being allowed here. Biruitorul Talk 06:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was speedy delete. G11 Tone 14:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Mucciolo

    Tom Mucciolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A prod on this article was removed without comment by the author (also the subject). This article seems to be a promotional autobiography that provides no references. In attempting to locate sources on Google to confirm notability (my search) I was unable to find anything that was written about him and not by him. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:29, 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 02:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Zed

    Peter Zed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Clearly non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevinbell (talk • contribs) 05:38, March 21, 2009

    Deletion contested
    • Please note that the entry concerns a wrestler and pro-wrestling journalist, which has been defined as notable by existing considerations on Wikipedia. (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete He doesn't appear to pass WP:N. I can't find any information from reliable sources on Google or Google News, and the simple fact that he wrote for a notable website doesn't make him notable. The World Intellectual Property Organization citation is just a report of legal proceedings so I don't think it establishes notability, especially since no independant media talked about it. Laurent (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you seek out all secondary links or simply rely on one search engine to pass judgement on the entry? Did you read through the entire legal entry on WIPO and do you have copies of the print decision? 'Doesn't appear to pass notability' applies in what context...are you a knowledgable about pro-wrestling? Sevencraft (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well if you know any reliable third party sources, feel free to provide them. I can't find any myself that's all I'm saying. I didn't read through the WIPO entry but again I don't see how this single entry could establish notability since the legal case doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the media. Laurent (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which country of origin are those who are arguing for deletion from and do they have an understanding of international political machinations? Sevencraft (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:CREATIVE. WIPO issue (WP:BLP1E if we're only relying on that), if it's significant enough, can be included elsewhere. Rd232 talk 14:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As testified by Vince McMahon in court, professional wrestlers are sports entertainers not athletes, so the above deletion link is inconsistent.
    • Delete per WP:N, WP:BIO. Ridiculous puffy vanity autobio of the sort that we (thankfully) don't see much of on Wikipedia anymore. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above two entries do nothing to invalidate the notability of said entry. They both concentrate on the validity of one link, the WIPO reference, without noting the other contributions. The fact is, there is references from print, web and traditional material found within the article, and not simply web-only links. Will strive to find and search additional references for those who simply read it for a moment without understanding national context. Again, what country are the posters who have voted for delete here from. Because I'm sure I can find 80% of your home country notables that have no validity in foreign context Sevencraft (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a bias in the inconsistent reporting above concerning assumptions that the contributor is in fact of the male gender,Sevencraft (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, the article is part of a broader entry for Wikimania2009 so it is impossible to suggest that deleting the entry at least until additional references have been provided as to the nature of the entry have been corroborated. Sevencraft (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another reference of a notable nature has been added: From the YNOT News website Wikipedia and the Adult Industry: A Beginners Guide..."TORONTO - With Cybernet Expo a few short months away, it seems outrageous that in 2009, the adult industry has failed to form its own core users group on the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia. With that in mind, perhaps the most important task at hand for attendees this year is to get their heads out of the sand and begin the process of including an increased focus on Wikipedia and Wikimedia associated websites. If you've been under a rock for the last five years, Wikipedia is the world's largest encyclopedia - and good news for webmasters - it is both free to edit and uses open-source. Free as in beer and open-source as in a user-friendly version of PHP. That's a pretty sweet combination for any webmaster." Sevencraft (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Does not, in my opinion, meet WP:N. It is full of unsourced biographical material such as the claimed 2009 incident involving a panic attack and counterfeit watches and sometime reads like a press release. It also bothers me that the original editor, who is also the subject, seems to be creating source material such as the recently added Wikipedia and the Adult Industry: A Beginners Guide which is simply an editorial about Wikipedia. Wperdue (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
      • Will remove the panic attack information as per the editor's request.
    And how reliable is YNOT anyway? A website that publishes news just to get an article on Wikipedia, I would call that a questionable source. Laurent (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Major Update

    DELETE Still non-notable, still COI, still press release, still nonsensical in parts. Wiki entry about incoherent comments to someone's blog does not make one a journalist.Bevinbell (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Again, wrong, you have struck at this particular page for some reason I can't understand why. there are hundreds of pro-wrestler pages on Wikipedia and en entire portal. I will continue the edit but more than straight out duplicating the text of any number of a hundred other pro wrestlers is ridiculous. Pro wrestlers have notable contributions to Wikipedia.Sevencraft (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page has been cleaned up and now mirrors in content and tone that of other pro wrestlers and other adult industry journalists which are considered notable to Wikipedia.Sevencraft (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have satisfied the requirements for notablility and removed the sections in question. You will note, as have others who have submitted information to this page, that unless you are prepared to begin an entirely new direction and begin banning all pages by pro wrestlers and adult industry journalists, the criticim is simply misplaced. the page will receive minor edits as time goes on but I am preparing to add further references to the now reduced content to provide addition sources of notability Sevencraft (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. WP:BIO requires that the facts in the article be verifiable. The cited sources do not verify the facts in the article- in fact, none of the cited sources, as far as I can tell, is a article about Peter Zed from a reliable source. I was not able to find any articles about Peter Zed with my own google search, either. Of course, I have no objection to recreation of the article if and when somewhere, a few significant sources write about him in a significant way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I was not able to find any articles about Peter Zed with my own google search"... This is typical wikipedia gangbanging at its worst. Complaints were made about the page and it was edited... "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." There are two direct references on the page linking to articles from two different adult industry sources attributed to Peter Zed. More references will be added but the scope of complaints is not clear. Are those who are complaining here prepared to begin scouring all asult industry journalists and pro-wrestlers to destroy entries? — Sevencraft (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • Reply. I am sorry if my comment was confusing for you. Articles written by Peter Zed are not helpful sources; what's needed are significant articles about Peter Zed. As it is fairly clear that you are Peter Zed, you are the person most likely to know if such articles exist; if you have been profiled or interviewed in significant sources, it would be helpful if you would tell us where those sources are. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Two more references have been added, one from Pro Wrestling Torch and one for Frank Magazine. Please do not make baseless accusations regarding whom is who. Are those that are prepared to delete this entry prepared to delete all pro wrestling journalist entries and adult industry journalist enties? Sevencraft (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I'm going to have to jump to FisherQueen's defense here. The "accusation" about Sevencraft and Peter Zed being the same person, I believe is entirely true. This article http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=ea_article&sid=49452 written by Peter Zed reads at the end "You can reach Zed with your questions at sevencraft@live.com or join him on WikiProject Adult industry". I'm not a detective, but it seems very coincidental that the current username of the editor pushing to keep this article and the stated email address of Peter Zed on the YNot entry are exactly the same. Wperdue (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
    • Reply. It certainly isn't an accusation; it isn't a crime or a bad thing to be Peter Zed. However, it's pretty obvious that you are him, for the reasons Wperdue mentioned and also because you're showing the characteristic editing pattern of a person who is writing about himself. It might be very useful that you are Peter Zed, because that means you probably know what newspapers and magazines have profiled you, and what books have been written about you. Or, if none have been written yet, you could simply say, "I'm afraid you're right that I don't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and save us all a little effort. I can't find the article about you at either of the links you mentioned; the Pro Wrestling Torch link doesn't appear to mention your name, nor does the Frank Magazine link, unless I'm looking in the wrong place. Certainly neither of them is an article that you are the subject of. It might help you to look at the reference section of our article on Dave Meltzer to see what a well-referenced article about a wrestling journalist looks like. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:42, 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. yandman 15:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Danny Roberts (Artist)

    Danny Roberts (Artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:Creative: self-published work and a single magazine cover illustration does not constitute notability. Also apparently an autobiography, as the main contributor has uploaded the images of artwork in the article as "own work". Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. yandman 15:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alfred Alexander Gockel

    Alfred Alexander Gockel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:Creative, perhaps autobiography. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 05:21, 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.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Dreher (fourth nomination)

    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. yandman 15:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York)

    Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Completely unreferenced article created by sockpuppet of a banned user, thus eligible for speedy deletion under G5 (also is a recreation of an article speedy-deleted earlier), but speedy was denied on the basis that it "seems like a decent page". I agree that it seems decent, but the article's creator has a history of creating deceptive articles that seem OK, but are carefully disguised copvios or other forms of garbage. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neptune Island (Long Island Sound) (where I wrote a lot more in the way of reasons), if someone is willing to take responsibility for verifying the article and rendering it in their own words, that's fine, but keeping the current version because it looks like it might be OK is, in essence, saying that WP:V and WP:Ban have no significance. Orlady (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong keep This AfD is latest in running vendetta of Orlady against New Rochelle area articles. As Orlady notes, it "seems" decent. Notability is asserted, clear. Orlady is wasting my, others time with this pointless AfD, put in deliberately just in advance of my posting a community unban proposal for the allegedly banned user, who in fact is one of perhaps many misidentified by Orlady as being associates of one former wikipedia editor. This verges on wp:pointy. I am inclined to consider opening an RFC/User behavior on Orlady's actions here and elsewhere. doncram (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Lack of references is no reason to delete an article. Every assertion in the article seems verifiable. I'll add some references. Pburka (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The primary reason for deleting the article is not the lack of references, but WP:BAN, a policy on Wikipedia. The article was created by a banned user. The total absence of verifiable content is an additional reason for requesting deletion, particularly in view of the fact that this banned user has a history of copyvio and falsifying sources. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If you have evidence of copyvio, please provide it. The content is pretty well all verifiable, referenced and non-controversial. If this is politically motivated, then please feel free to ignore my vote. I don't want to get involved in wikipolitics. Pburka (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The point is that this user was banned from Wikipedia after compiling an extensive portfolio of disruptive actions. Consistent with Wikipedia policy on enforcing community bans by reverting edits, this means that his/her contributions are no longer welcome here (with the exception of obviously reasonable edits, such as spelling corrections). In the case of a banned user, it should not be necessary to comb through this user's articles line by line to determine whether there might possibly be salvageable content in them; as the policy states, "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." The only "politics" this is motivated by is Wikipedia policy. As for the statement that the content is "pretty well all verifiable and referenced," the only content that is sourced is the list of famous burials, and most entries on the list are sourced only to the non-WP:RS findagrave website. There are no sources provided for most of the article, such as the factual information in the sentence that says "It was started in 1858 and is one of the oldest Catholic cemeteries in New York state." --Orlady (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks and congratulations to Pburka for finding a good source on the founding of the cemetery, correcting the date of founding from 1858 to 1886, and eliminating the incorrect statement that said this is "one of the oldest Catholic cemeteries." Those content errors are typical of the problems I have found in articles by various of Jvolkblum's hundreds of sockpuppets, and that have caused me to become so emphatic that these articles must be deleted (in accordance with the policy WP:BAN) unless someone is willing to take responsibility for rewriting them after verifying all of the contents. --Orlady (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudos to Pburka for helping with this article!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.191.221.194 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that sources do exist that list 1858 as the date HSC was established example. Additionally, the article provided by Pburka states that the cemetery is "one of the oldest burial grounds in Westchester" doc.. Clearly these are honest mistakes rather than intentional fabrications on the part of the articles creator. --88.191.221.194 (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw request for deletion. Article has been rescued, largely by the efforts of Pburka. (Additionally, I deleted a couple of sentences that were still unsourced.) --Orlady (talk) 19:35, 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. yandman 15:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chase Meridian

    Chase Meridian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    One time character created for movie Batman Forever and has not featured in any comics/films since. Not notable enough to be part of popular culture. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    May I ask why? Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: You may all be interested in this, List of Batman supporting characters#Love interests, I didn't know it existed. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was speedy delete. A5 Tone 11:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Constrained optimization and Lagrange multipliers

    Constrained optimization and Lagrange multipliers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Moved to wikibooks

    This article has just been transwikied to wikibooks:Calculus optimization methods – and in fact as the history shows, it was nominated to be moved to WB from the 2nd edit, as it is clearly textbook material (“How to do constrained optimization via Lagrange multipliers”), not encyclopedic.

    The content has not been removed, and the WB page is listed at the encyclopedic entry, Lagrange multipliers, and all other links to the page are “List” or “Cleanup”, so I don’t think that there is any need for a soft redirect, and the page should simply be deleted.

    Does this seem reasonable? (This is my first AfD – is this the right approach?)

    —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:29, 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. yandman 15:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sonic the Hedgehog Harder Levels

    Sonic the Hedgehog Harder Levels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non notable "hack" of a popular video game; nothing about this can even be merged to the actual article. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:26, 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 as rewritten; I don't think a long close statement is in order, but for DRV's sake here goes: (1) it seems that everyone agrees that there was this island; (2) the community has said that geographic features are usually notable; (3) the only real objection is that this was created by a banned user; (4) we have two provisions in apparent conflict WP:CSD#G5 allowing for speedy deletion of materials of that sort and a statement at WP:BAN that it deletion is not required; (5) the article has been substantially redone by an editor in good standing. So, given that deletion appears to be permissive and not required, we have the authority to keep this, and now that it has been rewritten we should. 'nuff said and thanks to all who helped out here, because this was a policy discussion worth having, and we may continue to have at the talk pages of the two cited policy pages to resolve the apparent conflict in explicit terms. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Neptune Island (Long Island Sound)

    Neptune Island (Long Island Sound) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I believe this article qualifies for speedy deletion (under criterion G5) as the creation of a banned user (User:Jvolkblum) evading the ban. All substantial edits to the article are by socks of the banned user. However, the speedy deletion template was removed on the grounds that it appears to be a "seemingly worthwhile, problem-free article."

    The article does indeed seem to be worthwhile and problem-free, but its creator is a user who has specialized in creating content that seems good, but turns out on careful examination to be artfully disguised garbage. Among the long-term disruptive behaviors for which this user earned his/her community ban is falsification of sources. This has included adding content that was copied verbatim from copyrighted sources but was inserted in articles with citations to completely unrelated sources (typically an obscure book title with a date from the early 20th century that is not available online), citations to plausible sounding sources that upon examination do not even vaguely support the content, and reference callouts that identify an online source as something completely different than what it actually is. Additionally, although the topic is superficially "worthwhile," close examination suggests that it's pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things. My eyeball estimate from a map indicates that the island that is the subject of the article has a total area of less than 2 acres, and the main topic of the historical sources cited in the article has been disputes over real estate transactions.

    The article does cite some sources that are related to the topic, but much of the content in the article is not associated with any reference callouts, and the sources cited don't necessarily support the information with which the citations are associated. For example, this 1848 history book is cited to support the sentence "When Louis A. DePau purchased Locust Island (now included in Glen Island) in 1847 and built his residence there, he established a chain-ferry between that island and Neptune Island for his own private use, landing at a dock on the west of Neptune Island." The book does exist, and it does state that Louis A. DePau purchased Locust Island, but it says nothing about his building a residence or a chain ferry, and it does not indicate that Locust is part of Glen Island (another source cited earlier in the article does document the name change). The following paragraph has extensive historical information, but the only source cited documents only that New Rochelle and Pelham Railroad Company and the New Rochelle Street Railway Company were established in 1885 and that a branch line to the Neptune House dock was planned; none of the other details in the paragraph are documented by that source. Based on my past experience with the banned user, I think it likely that the entire article is copied from some source that is not identified or cited in the article. In view of the fact that this is a banned user whose past offenses have included trying to pawn off copyvio content by inserting seemingly valid false references, I believe this article should be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy on enforcing community bans by reverting edits, which states "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert". If someone is willing to take responsibility for verifying the article and rendering it in their own words, that's fine, but keeping the current version because it looks like it might be OK is, in essence, saying that WP:V and WP:Ban have no significance.

    Finally, for the record, this is at least the third time this article has been created. Earlier versions that were deleted included Neptune Island (New Rochelle) and Neptune Island (New York). Orlady (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong keep This AfD is latest in running vendetta of Orlady against New Rochelle area articles. As Orlady notes, it "seems" decent. Notability is asserted, clear. Orlady is wasting my, others time with this pointless AfD, put in deliberately just in advance of my posting a community unban proposal for the allegedly banned user, who in fact is one of perhaps many misidentified by Orlady as being associates of one former wikipedia editor. This verges on wp:pointy. I am inclined to consider opening an RFC/User behavior on Orlady's actions here and elsewhere. P.S. My response copied exactly from my response to another simultaneous AFD opened by Orlady on another New Rochelle article. It does not merit revising. If you oppose here, please also copy your response to oppose there, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York) doncram (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, for the record, Orlady has elsewhere made claims that "Jvolkblum" (which is really perhaps several different persons caught up in one mess, only one of which has been banned) is entirely fabricating material, and then Orlady was proven wrong. Further, Orlady acknowledges the topic is notable: "If someone is willing to take responsibility for verifying the article and rendering it in their own words, that's fine, ....". I think Orlady's point is that she doesn't want to be the person monitoring this article for accuracy. The solution for that is for Orlady to drop it from her watchlist, not to try to force other editors to waste time with an inappropriate AFD. I say it is not necessary for anyone to revise the article in response to this AFD. Following logic similar to Orlady's, perhaps it is best not to cater to the unreasonable demands of Orlady, who may just want the article improved, but instead raised an inappropriate AFD. doncram (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP -
      • The island is geographic landform of New York state, falling under several sub-categories including Island of New York and

    Long Island Sound. Numerous articles about minor U.S. islands exist that have never been challenged for notability. Some examples include: Davis Island (Connecticut), Conspiracy Island, Griffen Island (West Virginia), Rabbit Island (Rhode Island)

      • The island is recognized as a 'New York physical, cultural and historic feature' by US Board on Geographic Names (BGN) Geographic Names Information System (UGIS) Neptune Island.
      • The island's history dates back several hundred years. (Examples):
        • It was the site of "The Neptune House" which was a popular summer resort during the mid-1800's. (The firm Currier & Ives produced a print of the hotel.)
        • The US Government operated ferry service to & from Fort Slocum (on nearby Davids' Island) was run from Neptune Island.
        • Chain-ferries and ferries to Glen Island Park operated from docks on Neptune Island.
        • The bridge/roadway connecting Glen Island County Park to the mainland crosses the western portion of Neptune Island.
      • Present day uses of the island:
    • Keep per nom. The nom's description of the process of the editing actually confirms the notability of the topic. Believing that an article of a notable topic should be deleted because of faults of the creator and main editors is very ad hominem.--Oakshade (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you mean Keep, but not "per nom". The nom was to delete the article. doncram (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The nom wants the article deleted but only makes arguments that support keeping it. That's why the "Keep per nom".--Oakshade (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete G7. The points made above are very cogent, but I think as an overriding principle, we can't condone blocked socks of banned users even when they appear to be making constructive edits. No prejudice against an editor in good standing re-creating this article with different content, of course.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • With multiple individuals arguing for keep here, and the request for G7 already denied, it's not a candidate for speedy deletion. Hence the regular deletion discussion. WilyD 12:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete per nom and S Marshall. Any attempt to verify the content through legitimate references would inevitably involve effective recreation of the entire content from scratch. As it stands, the article is entirely unreliable. AngoraFish 木 11:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read through the listed references and found a few points mentioned in the article, but *most* of the article can not be considered sourced. I find it interesting that it does not mention that it's not even considered an island [2] anymore, having been connected by a causeway and bridge so that recent mentions of it are entirely about "Neptune Park". I looked for other references for "Neptune Island" and found either the aforementioned listed references or other locations. I'm not quite sure what to make of the effort behind this article. If it's true, based on original research, I wish they would write a book. If it's a mix of true and false stories, why put so much time into it? Should it be deleted? I think it should be tagged, and most of the article moved to the talk page. dm (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural delete as coming from a banned user. This is what the banning discussion was all about and if we wanted to accept articles from that author we wouldn't have banned him. ThemFromSpace 15:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An article on a notable topic that happened to be created by a banned user is not grounds for deletion. WP:NOTABILITY makes absolutely no mention of articles created by editors that Wikipedia doesn't like as it is totally off topic.--Oakshade (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case most of the article should be removed. The references do not support most of the text. dm (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The references do appear to support the text. As for the other text - "The island is located in the city's Lower Harbor and is situated between Davenport's Neck, Glen Island and Travers Island" for example - it's all verifiable. If it was required to delete all text that doesn't have a citation tag next to it then about 90% of all Wikipedia content would be deleted. Only contentious or controversial material that currently doesn't have a citation "should be deleted."--Oakshade (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete (G5) as an article created by a banned user. The banning policy is clear on this—this person is not welcome here. It does not and should not trump notability. Notability does not and should not trump this important policy. MuZemike 00:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me clarify in regards to WP:BAN. Nearly all the content in the article was created by said banned editor. All other edits seem to be minor (i.e. not to be confused with "minor edit") compared to the first three edits in that article. Hence, I think this falls under the spirit of the banning policy and G5 as a result. MuZemike 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Here is an instance where our banning policy prevents the improvement of the encyclopedia, and therefore a suitable case for IAR. Very few banned editors actually continue to evade the ban by making good contributions; normally, a key reason for excluding them is that their contributions are quite likely to be dubious. This is different--there is a possibility that some additional sources might be needed, but the article is as well sourced and otherwise adequate as 99% of our local articles. Will this encourage the return of banned editors generally--I do not think so , as this is a special situation. We may need to discuss elsewhere how to deal with this particular individual. DGG (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply of Oakshade and DGG: The sources (which match everything I was able to find easily) do not cover most of the text as written. I'm an inclusionist, but as I found with the Thomas Paine Cottage when I rewrote it from scratch, leaving the pre-existing version in place was disingenuous, it almost seemed like the banned editor was enjoying creating content to prove their point that Wikipedia isnt accurate. I'm fine with having an article for Neptune Park. It's not really an island anymore. But it will be a very small article without most of the current text. If this editor wanted to really contribute in a healthy way, they would keep the article text to what can be sourced and they would not try to own the articles. In fact, the best way for them to move forward would to find some *other* area in wikipedia to help out in for a while. dm (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you feel that this is relevant?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Contrary to the assertions that the sources in this article "appear" to support the text, I find that long passages are unsourced and there is little correlation between specific statements in the article and the sources cited to support those statements. Unfortunately, this has been typical of my experience with "Jvolkblum" socks. In this experience, the article content often is interesting, appears plausibly true, and is sprinkled with reference callouts. Upon examination, though, the references cited don't actually support the specific information to which they are attached. Sometimes in my research into articles such as this one, I've finally come upon the work from which the article was copied verbatim -- except for the addition of reference callouts to other works, sprinkled semi-randomly through the text. Because the affected articles have mostly been deleted, it is difficult for me to provide examples. Suffice it to say that the "Jvolkblum" socks are masters at introducing carefully disguised copvios into Wikipedia, and this article is similar in many respects to some other articles that ultimately were determined to be copyvios. --Orlady (talk) 18:15, 25 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 02:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep unless material included is shown to be inaccurate, not merely unsourced. Being unsourced is not grounds for deleting an article. While being created by a sock of a banned user is, this article appears to have been a good-faith effort to produce a useful article. I'm not an expert on this subject area, so I can't be certain of the accuracy of the article, but it all appears reasonable to me. If somebody highlights more than trivial inaccuracies in the article, please consider my !vote changed to delete. JulesH (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep as per JulesH above. If the article were better sourced and shown to be accurate there seems no reason to delete just because a banned sockpuppet has written it. Ban sockpuppet again is a better solution. Some separation should be made between punishing users breaking the rules and the interests of a comprehensive WP. --Moloch09 (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - The user who created the sockpuppet that created this article is still banned, but the user is agressive in evading the ban, including creating myriad sockpuppet accounts and editing from open proxies. The sockpuppet accounts, open proxies, etc., are blocked on a regular basis, but generally only after new content has been created. Effective enforcement of a Wikipedia community ban necessitates removal of the content added by banned users. Insisting that the banned user's contributions be treated as if they were good faith contributions only abets this banned user in his/her apparent goal of disrupting Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but stubify As someone who has occasionally observed the Jvolkblum mess and disputes resulting from the same, I'm deeply suspicious of anything written by him/her, and even the significant possibility of it being him/her writing is enough for me to become quite dubious. Therefore, I believe it best to remove all content that can't precisely be sourced, without using {{fact}} and similar templates. However, nobody claims that this doesn't exist, and it's doubtless a notable topic. For that reason, it shouldn't be at all hard to write at least a good stub; and if we simply remove problematic content, rather than deleting and recreating, an honest user will be able to restore the good parts that have been removed. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Everyone who has contributed to this article is free to edit the article to remove the content that is unsourced and/or unencyclopedic. However, it is not clear that this 2-acre tract of land (my estimate; the land area is not given in the article and I have not found any source that documents it) that formerly was an island is "doubtless a notable topic." --Orlady (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - IAR case - the article is good. The reason for which G5 exists is because banned users tend to post dubious material which should be removed in a speedy fashion - this is an exception to that. From WP:BAN:
    — neuro(talk)(review) 15:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, then recreate as stub. Clearly the topic is notable, and Wikipedia probably ought have an article here. However, this is not just a banned user, but a user banned for subtle copyright violation and falsification of facts. In this case, being unsourced -- or sourced to questionable or unavailable material -- has the presumption of inaccuracy. Could all the details be checked out and proper sourcing done? Yes, with the same amount of work it takes to build an article de novo. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Serpent says: Delete and recreate as a stub. All our policies and guidelines are subordinate to the idea that anything we include must do more good than harm to the project. How much harm will it do to have a stub instead of a full article? Not much. How much harm will it do if the imbecile who created it goes and writes an op-ed on how inaccurate Wikipedia is, using this as his prime example? Far more. yandman 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Keep (see comment below this one) it can always be recreated as a stub. Normally, I'd say that editing problems don't need to be solved with deletion, but this is a special case. Burn it to the ground and start over with information that is entirely sourced. I don't have any faith that the article is a sincere effort to get at the truth. Destroying it helps the encyclopedia directly by removing what may well be lies, and indirectly by sending a message that sophisticated trolling will come to nothing. -- Noroton (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that the article has been stubbed, my major objection is gone. We might as well keep it. I just hope unsourced information isn't added back in. -- Noroton (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or stubbify. If i understand the problem, it's a banned user whose often created hoax articles and hoax information that seems plausible? And allowing this to stand as is might encourage them to continue socking and, likely, start creating hoaxes again? And this is a long article to start with that's difficult to assess (because there's a lot of info). Given the record of the banned user, there is no trust or good faith to assume. Strip it down to "Neptune is an island in the Long Island sound" and have a responsible editor start over.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hoax accusation is misleading, there are no hoax articles that i am aware of. There is a current discussion at wp:an about the banned user and other users caught up in the mess. A major point there is that there are more than one different persons tarred with the same brush. I am aware of an accusation or two by Orlady that some material was fabricated, one of which was tracked down and shown to be false (the source existed, the quote was exact). I am not aware of any hoax articles. If you are, please share. doncram (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. I opposed above, as the first response to the original deletion. Whatever the bad stuff in the article is, deleting the article destroys the continuous record here, and makes more work for us and for future editors not yet involved. The New Rochelle area editor(s) who put it in before have saved copies and stand ready to paste it in again, as they have before for this and other articles on New Rochelle area articles that have been deleted repeatedly. The New Rochelle area editors have been trained by long experience to understand that Wikipedia administration (broadly, meaning us), is unfair and mean-spirited, and that it is necessary to save copies, and to be persistent, in order to get suitable coverage of NR area topics that by everyone's admission are wikipedia-notable. I pretty much agree with them, that is a reasonable approach to take, given really nasty and unfair persecution. Some here would wish to punish them, to send a message by deleting the article. That message will not be received or understood; its only effect will be to make it harder for the rest of us to keep the bad stuff, whichever that is, out, in the future. Certainly it is fine for anyone to stubify the article, but this is an AfD process and the decision here is about whether to Keep or Delete. As the deletion nominator admits, the subject of the article is notable, and I argue that Keeping is far better. doncram (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The purpose of deletion (if the closing admin finds for it), is specifically to "destroy[] the continuous record". That's a feature, not a bug. Regardless of whether or not any one editor feels that a ban was rightfully enacted, the banning policy states that the content of editors evading a ban (as opposed to a simple, even indefinite, block) are not welcome here. That is doubly true for editors whose banning includes claims of source manipulation or plagiarism. Nor is the solution here to "save copies, and to be persistent". Deleted material is deleted material, and recreation of it is subject to speedy deletion on those grounds. I do not for a moment dispute that this topic is viable for Wikipedia. But the contribution of text that currently stands as an article on this topic is inherently tainted. You appear to feel passionately about this area of history, and likely have better access to sources than I do (this is way, way out of my field). You seem to be in a position to help write a replacement, properly sourced, and free of a banned editor's poisoned well. What's there now isn't worth arguing about. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doncram, if the only information in the article is sourced and confirmed, and the only information that goes into the article later is sourced and confirmed, won't everyone or just about everyone here be happy? If bali ultimate has done that, then most of my problems with it are removed, and I'm fine with keeping it. If someone is going to try to add back information that either isn't footnoted or, if footnoted, isn't confirmed by an editor in good standing, then we have a problem that AfD can't solve anyway. -- Noroton (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. By the way, I'm really not interested in the topic of this article, not at all. What I want to preserve is the discussion of specific sources, so that future wikipedia editors know that Orlady or whoever found out specifically that a given source said, or did not say, whatever. Stuff like that should best argued out in the Talk page of the article, but it is also argued out in the edit history and edit summaries in the article itself. Deleting will lose the present edit history, edit summaries, and any Talk page discussion. It will not remove the material from the hands of any NR area editors who might wish to add it in again. The future regular wikipedia editors will have no way of knowing that specific material was already discussed, if the article is deleted. Like the present discussion is impoverished by our not having access to the edit history and Talk page discussion of the two or more previous versions of this article, that were deleted already. doncram (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • cmt if anyone's interested, I've brutally stubbified, and added in the fact that it appears to no longer be an island. I stripped out everything that wasn't clearly and accurately citable on line. I still think starting over is a better idea, given that you don't want to encourage this behavior (and the article was, as created, filled with unverifiable and confusing information.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. I think that this is a fine start. Your discussion of the sources in your edit summaries will prove invaluable in the future, too. Deleting and repasting in this new version would not encourage any good behavior or send any useful message, it would just lose useful information, in my view. So, I think we've reached the right outcome: the article has been reduced down to an acceptible stub. Orlady has effectively "won" by forcing other editors to do that. The NR editor(s) have "won" by having Orlady, me, and everyone else here agree that the topic is eminently notable. And future editors "win" by having record of the discussion and the specific discussion available to them. Yay, we have reached a WIN-WIN-WIN resolution. All that remains is for someone to close this discussion in favor of Keep. doncram (talk) 20:46, 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. yandman 15:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of New Zealand songs by year

    List of New Zealand songs by year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    New list of "notable" songs from New Zealand, sorted by year. Several of the songs, though, aren't on Wikipedia, and a few don't even have artists on Wikipedia.

    The page itself is a very specific list that is only relevant to a small, limited audience, and qualifies as WP:LISTCRUFT. If the songs are on Wikipedia, they could possibly be included in a new category called "New Zealand songs from year", but this list is superfluous. KhalfaniKhaldun 02:59, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jay de pellette

    Jay de pellette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article has no sources, and researching the subject leads me to believe that it may very well be a hoax. He doesn't have an IMDB listing. I couldn't find him in any list of nominees for the Laurence Olivier Awards. He claims that his single entered the UK singles chart at #1, but it can't be found either. Anyone have better luck than me finding sources? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete per nom. Could not find ant info in a Google search. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 02:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete No luck with sources. Hoax? Vartanza (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He is a famous Scottish actor I have seen him in several BBC programmes and he has been in alot of plays, he is also on IMDB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.77.244 (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How can you guys not know Jay De Pellette he is like one of the most famous people in Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.77.244 (talk) 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 speedy delete. WP:NOT a bureaucracy yandman 15:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    St. Thomas of Villanova Church

    St. Thomas of Villanova Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I am bringing this directly to AfD, contrary to my usual practice, not because I have doubts about whether this article should be deleted (it certainly should), but rather to clarify the application of CSD A7 with regard to churches. This article is entirely about the community and has nothing about the building which the group uses as a church. (It should be noted that many languages, for example German, use a different word to refer to the community than the one they use to refer to the building.) I say {{db-group}} applies to church congregations.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Don't quote me on this, I may be wrong, I would think that {{db-group}} would encompass churches because a church is basically just a gathering of people. As to whether a7 has normally applied to churches, I don't know. Oli OR Pyfan! 07:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen it applied to churches rather routinely when the article is about the congregation. When the article is about the building, that's another matter entirely. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be better to keep a temporary copy in your userspace as an example if and when this article is deleted. We try not to keep stuff like this in the mainspace for very long. Chillum 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete I believe that Admin SoWhy was incorrect in declining the CSD A7 as this article is about a group of people that does not make an assertion of significance. Chillum 20:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It fails to meet notability criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that it mentions a street location, I think this article really needs to be treated as relating to both the church building itself and its congregation. I don't think an A7 (group) deletion would have been necessarily wrong, but it's certainly not clear cut. Nonetheless, there is no evidence of notability and no coverage in reliable sources, making delete the obvious outcome here. ~ mazca t|c 21:55, 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 speedy delete. obvious enough to fall under Vandalism. DGG (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Transnuclear biology

    Transnuclear biology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Hoax and patent nonsense (For example, Linus Torvalds is the creator of Linux). The creator also vandalized his own article. Bio and Phys projects have been contacted. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You actually took the time to google this? Clearly a hoax....wait...why am I even taking the time to write this? smooth0707 (talk) 04:38, 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. yandman 15:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ElectrowaveZ (Band)

    ElectrowaveZ (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Could not find sources to establish notability of band. Charlie shaabi has been speedied once, Charlie Shaabie is under AFD. tedder (talk) 01:15, 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. Xclamation point 00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Data center automation

    Data center automation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article was recently prod'd (by an editor other than me) with a description of "This appears to be using wikipedia as a forum for publishing an essay with the author's thoughts and opinions on the subject. It would be appropriate for a blog article somewhere, but not for wikipedia. Seems to violate WP:NOTAFORUM ("1. Primary (original) research"; "3. Personal essays") and the point of WP:NOTOPINION ("2. Opinion pieces," albeit not "on current affairs or politics")." The initial author of the article removed the prod, so I'm moving it to AFD. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - all of the issues can be addressed through editting, in particular the claim that there are no sources. Certainly the current article contains no sources, but the topic of data centre automation is a big one with a lot of coverage in the IT trade magazines. [3], and [4] are just a couple of examples. -- Whpq (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - I've removed the resource section as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category for Business continuity and disaster recovery doesn't appear to apply to the non-Dana aspect of the topic Tedickey (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur that the subject is sufficiently notable to have an article, but the article in its present form is just an opinion-laden essay. It needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt, not merely edited. TJRC (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But if none of the existing material is sourced, which parts are suitable for being transferred to another article? Tedickey (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just pointing out that [[User:SamJohnston|samj]'s conclusion of "delete" when the discussion veered to merge didn't make sense. -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Just to be clear, I still maintain the article should be kept as all the identified issues are ones that can be handled through editting. We do have article cleanup tags such as {{originalresearch}} and {{unreferenced}} to identify the need for cleanup which is recommended as per WP:BEFORE prior to taking an article to AFD. And I'll also note that no article improvement tags aside from an {{orphan}} have ever been applied. Even a casual search will show that there is plenty of coverage about this topic in trade press. So I don't see how this topic can be non-notable when it meets the general notability guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This added more tags, but was removed by Dana Tedickey (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed that. Thanks for adding them back to the article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But at this point I would have to at least ask the larger question, Does the Automation of any industry warrant a separate article? Or should it be a section of the Parent? What makes the Automation of this industry Notable? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 00:36, 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 merge to MTV Philippines. MBisanz talk 02:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    MTV Gimme 10

    MTV Gimme 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is a non-notable chart apparently compiled from text votes rather than record sales or airplay. WP:CHARTS regards such charts as generally bad. The article is sourced from non-RS sources, has little information about the chart itself and most of the article is just chart data. I did suggest merging this article to MTV Philippines but there has been no interest at all in doing this (either for or against). This would seem to suggest that even the people interested in MTV Philippines do not care about it. It certainly is not notable enough to survive as an article in its own right so I favour deleting it and/or redirecting it to MTV Philippines. DanielRigal (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: That is why I initially suggested a merge. It seemed that nobody was interested. I don't think we need a full merge with all of the chart data (which is not sourced from RS) but I have no objection to the introduction (which is only a single sentence anyway) being merged. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:22, 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 Restored dab. yandman 15:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Third Time Lucky

    Third Time Lucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverse chain letter

    Reverse chain letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Googling suggests that this fails to meet both the notability and verifiability criteria. The Anome (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete smells like WP:OR to me. --Numyht (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 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 Mario Vazquez. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    One Shot (song)

    One Shot (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No evidence of notability for this single. Did not chart [6]. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs TheClashFan (talk) 08:38, 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 00:07, 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 07:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Great Commission Air

    Great Commission Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Declined A7. After the tag was placed, the author added prose referring to a newspaper article (I think this was the author's attempt at a citation.) I converted the reference into an inline citation and MOSifed the article as a whole, but I could not find any way to verify the Ann Arbor News article being referenced. A search of the newspaper's archives turns up nothing whatsoever, and when I attempted to find other sources Google only comes back with links to the company's official website, blog entries and a couple of press releases and GNews turns up a single article [7] that makes only a passing reference to Great Commission Air, but nothing verifying the print article listed.

    No coverage in non-trivial, secondary sources that I could find, fails WP:N and WP:V. -Senseless!... says you, says me 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. There's no need for sources to be available online, only that they should be in principle verifiable. I'm sure that there are libraries that hold back issues of The Ann Arbor News. Unless someone checks it and find that it doesn't back up the article we should assume good faith and accept it as a valid source. A Google News archive search actually gets two hits, not one, the second of which covers the crash described in the article. Having said al that I'm not sure that these sources add up to significant coverage of this airline. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment. The Ann Arbor News article does come up in a search of their website, along with three other mentions of the subject, but the citation in our article gives the wrong date - I'll fix it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand articles don't need to be available online to use as a source, it was just that I couldn't find anything else on the subject. Maybe I was searching google news incorrectly. -Senseless!... says you, says me 22:26, 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 00:07, 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, DGG (talk) 23:56, 25 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 | Talk 00:00, 30 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 23:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Operator generator

    Operator generator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable band. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:30, 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 00:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Another of Choi's bands may also be notable. Noothgrush released an album through Throne Records and another through Slap-a-Ham Records and a quick search finds multiple reviews. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:11, 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 00:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *Weak delete and rewrite, they may be notable enough, but the article is a pure mess and lacking any sources. Deletion Mutation 17:16, 28 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 02:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Topper's Pizza (American restaurant)

    AfDs for this article:
    Topper's Pizza (American restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Only trivial coverage found, such as events at local branches. Only other sources I could find are franchise directories. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoever placed the "if you came here" box on this discussion, please remove it. The device is appropriate only where it appears that there actually is a discussion with multiple participants, and should never be used pre-emptively. Thank you. Mandsford (talk) 13:22, 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, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - It appears to me that it passes WP:ORG. My Google search turned up an article about the company in Food and Drink magazine, which I added to the article as a reference. That plus the article in the "State News" (apparently in Lansing, Michigan) makes two solid third-party sources, in addition to articles in campus newspapers such as the Badger Herald. --Orlady (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not notable. Notability requires multiple, reliable sources about the subject itself rather than throw away, marginal articles about store openings and the like. The Food and Drink article, as a trade publication, is borderline, but after that it's a real struggle to find anything substantial. The State News article is no more nor less than any new business is likely to get as a write up in a small town newspaper. If this chain is notable then the bar on notability is so low that we may as well not bother worrying about notability at all. AngoraFish 木 11:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete 20 locations is rather borderline to me. It's not some dude's hot-dog stand, but it's also not a reasonably well-known or recognisable brand, even regionally. Unlikely to become part of any historic record (even within its business niche), no innovations, no unique aspects, and just plain not much to say about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I ran across one search-results link (apparently more recent than the sources cited in the article, which are several months old) that said they had 23 locations, but I couldn't see the whole article to verify the info and the source. --Orlady (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't suprise me. If they're a franchise biz, they probably gain and lose locations fairly regularly, that's par for the course in franchising. Another location or two won't save this article. What would save it is some claim of cultural significance (Domino's Noid was popular enough to have a Nintendo game, Ray's Pizza is a New York institution), pioneering a unique business method (Chuck E Cheese's mechanical mostrosities or Cici's pizza buffet), particularly outstanding reception (first pizza place to earn a Michelin star?) or being a global colossus (Pizza Hut is a household word in some 100 countries). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree that the difference between 18, 20, 23, or 30 locations does not determine notability. I was merely adding a point of information. Since then, however, I expanded the article based on several additional sources. I have no personal experience with this chain, but from what I have read about it, I get the impression that it has an unusual marketing approach that is proving very successful, at least for now. --Orlady (talk) 15:48, 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. DGG (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hide The Turkey

    Hide The Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable game yielding no relevant hits on Google News, Books, or Scholar; previously prodded, but an IP removed the tag. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I originally tagged this with a PROD. As I stated in the Prod there is no indication this is a notable game and I couldn't verify the material with reliable sources. --DFS454 (talk) 17:45, 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, 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 00:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a gsearch indicates to me that the game shown in the video was a on-off activity by one schoolteacher. I can't find evidence that this game is widespread or traditional, and none has been presented. JJL (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No evidence that this is widespread or has received media coverage (although I did find a disturbing number of references to "hide the turkey baster"). Pburka (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as as a non-notable, unverifiable game. Sure, there are probably a couple of elementary schools that play the "game" around thanksgiving time, but that doesn't mean it is worth an article. Tavix (talk) 23:31, 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 delete. I would have Speedy G11ed this, myself... Oh well. DELETED! Valley2city‽ 18:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Justrade

    Justrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    There is a conflict of interest in this article, I prod'ed the article which the article creator has removed. The article is overly advertorial in nature, and I am failing to find sources which give the subject notability within an encyclopaedic context Russavia Dialogue 15:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 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. Valley2city‽ 18:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Amdi Petersens Armé

    Amdi Petersens Armé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No sources given to back up the claim of popularity. Sources inserted by the deprodder are trivial and inadequate. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete No sources given to back up the claim of popularity. Sources inserted by the deprodder are trivial and inadequate for further consideration - sorry.

    Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 17:19, 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 00:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It's a band from the Danish underground music scene, which has a small, but seemingly devoted fan crowd, loosely related to the small but highly visible anti-globalization, anti-autoritarian, anti-etc European activist movement that in Denmark gravitated around Ungdomshuset. I have checked the first couple of hundred Ghits, including the ones in Danish. Blogs and forums etc. that wont pass WP:V. Band certainly doesn't pass WP:BAND. I would perhaps advise the article creator to write a general article on the underground music scene in Copenhagen, giving passing mention to the band, with the caveat, that even such an article would face long-time survival difficulties on en.wikipedia, precisely because it's a minority fringe grouping, that will have inherent problems with WP:RS. Perhaps it would be better to let such an article incubate a while on the Danish Wikipedia, to test ground for consensus there first. But again, precisely because this subculture largely rejects regular society, it's an uphill struggle to have the subculture's artifacts mentioned in an Encyclopedia, which requires independent third-party coverage by regular society's media. For the same reason Blod Ser Mere Virkeligt Ud På Film, Gorilla Angreb and No Hope for the Kids should go. Hjertestop could perhaps stay, with more sources verifying the claim of EU touring. You should be very selective creating other articles from List of Danish punk bands. Sorry. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per result of AfD and removal of copyvio Valley2city‽ 18:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chitrananda Abeysekera

    Chitrananda Abeysekera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Possible copyvio, since it says "This article was also published in "Swarnamali" Poetry Collection by Chitrananda Abeysekera in 1984." ViperSnake151 13:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Keep - Please close this AFD. The key diff is here: [15]. That note is a poorly-formatted reference saying that one of the poems in the list was published in multiple collections, NOT an indication that this article is a copyvio. Looking over the history, it appears to have been organically built by two contributors and not a copyvio. JRP (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Actually, there was a separate section which I missed which also claimed to be a reprint from another source. I've removed the whole section. There are enough formatting and terminology issues here that I could also be wrong about the citation above, BUT with the offending text gone I stand by my keep. JRP (talk) 13:37, 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 00:04, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Navigrid

    Navigrid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Isolate (puzzle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Delete I think it'd need more than one paper and one puzzle-specific book to meet notability criteria. Multiple papers, included in books from multiple publishers, or something like that. DreamGuy (talk) 14:47, 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 00:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With criteria for inclusion that low we would have probably 1,000 other puzzle types invented up by people who hoped to get free advertising here. Please take a look at what our notability requirements actually are before commenting on AFDs. DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you aware of the recent megabytes of discussion at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation - it's a guideline, not a "requirement", and not policy; and opinion is divided, to say the least. Please point out to me the "free advertising" or just some promotion or canvassing - I think you grossly exaggerate the importance of having one out of two million Wikipedia articles, especially when the products have allready hit mainstream media, and in the case of Isolate, is published daily in one of the largest newspapers in the UK (The Daily Mail). Take also a look at WP:COI, it's WP:NPOV that is the main concern, not the COI per se, and I don't se NPOV problems in this article, but again, please point them out to me. Undisclosed COI is a serious potential problem, but again this is not the case with this editor, who reveals his interests. The diff you provide is an absolutely fair question, the editor merely asks, how to prove that e.g. Isolate is published daily, truly legit. What was your reply?. I wouldn't know how to lift this burden of proof, other than buy the paper myself. Regarding the 1000 puzzles, no problem, if they are mainstream media, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. Lastly, please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep These games have been published in multiple notable magazines/papers. I agree that inline citations should be added to these two articles, but this is an editorial issue (add/edit/improve), not an administrative (deletion) issue. Tothwolf (talk) 02:02, 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) 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kingfisher Sky

    Kingfisher Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. SummerPhD (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. While I did manage to find this, that was it. Not enough to pass WP:Music C1. Willing to change my vote if someone can dig up something else mind you. Keep per the ref's HexaChord dug up, and thanks for giving me a few more URL's for my music searches.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 22:37, 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 00:04, 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. Tone 14:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Max H. Larson

    Max H. Larson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Articles on other presidents of JW *branch offices* do not exist, and are not notable. Not the same as president of *international* Watchtower corporation. Jeffro77 (talk) 12:43, 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 00:04, 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. MBisanz talk 09:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tina K.

    Tina K. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I don't see that this singer meets WP:MUSICBIO. The article currently has no sources or incoming links, and the four different names she's recorded under make finding sources difficult. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:04, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    National Association of Retail Shipping Centers

    National Association of Retail Shipping Centers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Seems to be written like advertising for a while now. No sources, not encylopedic. Versus22 talk 21:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *Note: I did both this + speedy because I wasn't too sure which one was more suitable. I'm sorry if I did this incorrectly. I don't nominate often. Versus22 talk 21:27, 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 00:02, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Program Authority

    Program Authority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This nomination appears flawed to me. "No sources"—I see 76,000 google hits. "Orphaned"—not grounds for deletion. That leaves "non-notable". What steps has the nominator taken to comply with WP:BEFORE?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

    Zamboanga Golf and Country Club

    Zamboanga Golf and Country Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, since the article has from its inception contained only copyvio content—uncredited paste from another WP article, violating the GFDL. No prejudice against creation of a proper article at this title, as it looks as though the place has some claim to notability (oldest course in Philippines, founded by Black Jack Pershing). Deor (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've stripped out the irrelevant info and started a brief article on the actual subject matter. I suggest this AFD is closed and it's renominated if need be on other grounds. AndrewRT(Talk) 14:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep pruning and rewrite by AndrewRT saves it - good job. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

    AfterLogic XMail Server

    AfterLogic XMail Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bring Me the Horizon . MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oli Sykes

    Oli Sykes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Only notability is as a member of Bring Me the Horizon so a redirect would be more appropriate than an article. Also most of the article's content is unsourced and possibly unverifiable, and removing it would leave it as a coatrack for a non-notable incident. —Snigbrook 15:34, 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, 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 merge to Sally Spectra. MBisanz talk 02:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jackie M Designs

    Jackie M Designs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

    • If I have this right, this is basically another name for the same organization as in the other AFD. If that one is merged, then this one should be too. Since the show isn't available you can't reliably cite episodes as sources. - Mgm|(talk) 12:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The editor who created just copied the merged material into a new article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chamseddine

    Chamseddine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unreferenced permastub about a surname, but without any demonstration of notability. Can't find anything on Google, because there are enough random people with this name that a search reveals primarily Facebook and personal genealogy pages. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why? Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep under one of the possible spellings as a valid disambiguation page, with redirects from other spellings. I don't think any one spelling can be called the correct one as most families with this name originate from cultures where the Latin alphabet is not used. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bianca Brigitte Bonomi

    Bianca Brigitte Bonomi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jasmine Gradwell

    Jasmine Gradwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The New Answers Book

    The New Answers Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unnotable book created more than a year ago. BBiiis08 (talk) 21:39, 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 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pyrford Cricket Club

    Pyrford Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Village cricket club which fails cricket notability guidelines of having played in the Premier Division of one of the ECB Premier Leagues. Also fails WP:GNG of "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Prod was contested. Jpeeling (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Restating the points I made on the talk page:
    Cricket notablity guidelines state that the "Premier Division" guideline is just that, a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule. This side is notable for a) it's ground, b) it's long history and c) the renown of it's past players: Taibu, Butcher and - from a non cricket playing perspective - Colvile.
    There seems to be some agressive deleting of worthwhile articals on Wikipedia at present. We need to get away from this...
    I would humbly suggest that a more worthwhile use of Jpeeling's time would be editing/creating or improving articals rather than proposing deletions.
    Boatrace 16/3/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatrace (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealing with the points you make: a) I don't see what's particularly notable with regards the ground and that shouldn't have an impact on the notability of the club anyway. They are independent entities. Also the paragraph dealing with the ground is unsourced so shouldn't be the considered in a decision over notability. b) The history of a club is a fair point, but it should be for the events in that history not the mere length of it. 150 years isn't particularly long in cricketing terms, sticking just to the county of Surrey, Mitcham Cricket Club, Godalming Cricket Club, East Molesey Cricket Club and Chertsey Cricket Club all date back to the 18th century. c) Just as notability for players can't be gained by being associated with a notable club, the reverse should also be true. A club can't gain notability just because a notable player(s) played for them. They should gain it in their own right.

    Finally if you wish to discuss my edits may I suggest my talkpage not here. --Jpeeling (talk) 19:32, 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) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Abraham Busset

    Abraham Busset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

    In the most practical terms, it's because there are six billion people out there, most of whom have never done anything to catch the attention of anyone outside their immediate social circle. There are countless billions more who are deceased and of little note to those outside their social circle. Having information on any of these billions of people, even if it's verifiable, wouldn't do a whole lot to improve the encyclopedia, except to an extremely narrow audience for each article, and would make it more difficult to maintain and navigate the encyclopedia as a whole. Genealogy information is ultimately of greater utility to those who care about it (and those who don't) if placed in a more specialized resource such as Wikipeople.--Father Goose (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With the move, I think there is now consensus to keep. DGG (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Detpak

    Detpak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The article was a bit spammy and tagged for speedy deletion as spam. I've tried to de-spamify. Some of the products this company produces are familiar to a large number of consumers, so there's at least an argument for notability. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice job despamming. I still don't see much notability, nor does it look like it will get any better. I found it very difficult to find a source that wasn't Detpak or someone who sells there product. I think they sponsor a barista competition. Dethlock99 (talk) 17:33, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Suryamukhi

    AfDs for this article:
    Suryamukhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sudbury Community Foundation

    Sudbury Community Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Tagged for speedy deletion as spam; I'm taking it to AfD because the creator mentioned the similarity to Vancouver Foundation; yes, they're similar, except that the Vancouver Foundation has $800M loonies and Sudbury's has $1.5M. Notifying WP:Canada. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:31, 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) 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

    Nelson Carvajal

    Nelson Carvajal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article fails to meet the notability guidelines set at WP:N. Contested prod. The only Google News hits[30] for "Nelson Carvajal" are for a Colombian teacher that was murdered. The only source for the article besides the subject's website is an iMDB entry, which with an IMDB Pro account, is just another self-published source. The acting roles are trivial and fail to meet the "significant roles" standard of WP:ENTERTAINER. The subjects filmmaking and writing fail to meet WP:CREATIVE. dissolvetalk 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 9 days; consensus is clear to delete DGG (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Improving Enterprises

    Improving Enterprises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article only contains primary sources. Searching Google shows nothing besides a lot of false positives. News has nothing but press releases and false positives. I can find no significant (or any) coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Fails WP:CORP. Atmoz (talk) 22:20, 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 00:00, 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. Even with the conflict of interest and the spa shenanigans on the article's talk page, there appear to be non trivial mentions in multiple sources. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Modcloth

    Modcloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Article creator has admitted COI. Rtphokie (talk) 18:43, 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) 00:00, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Howard Choi

    Howard Choi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not notable, also fails WP:PROF. Some of the above comments appear to be ambivalent more or less due to the number of ghits Choi generates. In reality, while Choi clearly is a prolific producer of papers, manuals and the like he has virtually no genuine, reliable, third party coverage. There is nothing that I can find which would suggest that any of his output to date is sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. AngoraFish 木 12:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Awards and being author of popular handbook makes him notable. LK (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, awards do not make someone notable, per Wikipedia:PROF, only "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." nb the national leadership award is awarded to "20 students, 20 residents and fellows and 15 young physicians" each year. Similarly the Foundation for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation is a relatively obscure foundation and award is a $10,000 grant. Most active biomedical researchers receive several such "awards" each year, usually for much larger amounts. Also, being author of an alleged "popular" handbook (how popular are you arguing it is, by the way?" I ask since the searches above are struggling to find it) would also not appear to be sufficient to comply with "academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institution". Handbooks are insanely common, they tend to summarize current thought rather than create new thought, and are thoroughly ephemeral unless you can provide sources that state otherwise. AngoraFish 木 21:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I have that beat with my thesis, which was 149 pages long, but the page length of "published works" is irrelevant. It is their impact that is important for establishing notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, doesn't seem to have authored any important reviews in his subject, or made any strikingly novel and widely-important findings that were reported by secondary sources. Seems a highly competent and promising young scientist, but not an established leader in his field. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The American Medical Association awards are quite notable. I don't care how many people get the award each year, is a rather small amount compared to the number of people involved in the American medical field, and you have had to have done something notable by their standards to receive it. And if this other foundation is giving out a $10,000 award, then he must've done something worth getting noticed. An award from an unknown is meaningless, but not if it includes a check for ten thousand dollars! This isn't some guy deciding to print out certificates on his home computer and hand them out to people, obviously. Dream Focus 20:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep The handbook is , just barely, enough for notability. DGG (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. I think that after 9 days total that consensus is clear. DGG (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Conrad Enterprise

    Conrad Enterprise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Corporation of no obvious notability. Possible speedy candidate, brought here due to disputed prod. Sources provided are minimal (at best). Unable to locate substantial coverage other than the company's own website. SummerPhD (talk) 20:06, 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) 00:00, 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_21&oldid=278706981"