Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 31: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:07, 31 March 2009

< 30 March	1 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Nominating account has been blocked as a sockpuppet. BJ^Talk 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Les Henderson

Not Notable Munchkin77 (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, keep. Avruch^T 15:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Munchkin77 seems to have a personal interest in the subject matter, judging by his or her edit history. Keep. Munchkin78 (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note both Munchkin77 (talk · contribs) and Munchkin78 (talk · contribs) were created on March 9, 2009. Both users have edited almost exclusively the Les Henderson article. Something is going on here. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Notability established. Jonathunder (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. These Munchkin accounts severely butchered a reasonably well-referenced text. Restored. Twri (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless there is an explanation forthcoming as to why this would be non-notable, the nom did not provide a valid reason for deletion. The ample referencing proves WP:GNG is met. -Mgm|^(talk) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the sources are inappropriate for a WP:BLP but the subject is still notable according to our BIO guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
regarding Non-notability: The article is based on three claims of notability, but they all fail the established rubric.1) That Henderson is an author. Both of his books are self published therefore they do not meet notability guidelines. The fact that a recognized publisher did not pick up the books for publication indicates. 2) That his website is used by government sources and in news reports. Being interviewed for a news story does qualify as notable or every witness to an accident would have a Wikipedia article. And the government sources he lists are nothing more than a long list of sites that list his site as one of many links. That is not endorsement by the agency, but rather evidence the government sites’ webmasters found his site in a search. 3) That he has been sued as a result of his books. Being sued does not establish notability or every neighbor who has been sued for a fallen tree would have a Wikipedia article.Munchkin77 (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the tone of your edits and the fact that you have only ever edited this article, it would seem that you have a personal interest. Please review WP:COI. Munchkin78 (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Being sued does make you notable if it gets reported. SpinningSpark 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't if it's just the one event. Many lawsuits for small issues are reported in a newspaper. You list one newspaper and several websites. Websites, especially those that are user editable, do not constitute notability.Munchkin77 (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Notability is demonstrated. - 7-bubёn >t 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established and verified by significant (less than exclusive, more than trivial) coverage in multiple reliable sources. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapidshare downloader

Software with no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also spammed cross-wiki. --Erwin(85) 20:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rapidshare is certainly a notable site and it is possible that this is a notable tool for use on that site. However, this article is just an advert. Warning - the google search term rapidshare downloader gets 24 million hits, but few of them are for this product, this is more a reflection of the popularity of the site than popularity of this software product. SpinningSpark 15:28, 1 April 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) 00:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SPAM concerns and a product likely not endorsed by Rapidshare itself as a violation of their TOS. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated on the talk page of this entry by an anonymous user who is most likely the creator of the entry judging by their edit history: "This is one of countles RapidShare Downloader, but this one works well." I don't think that establishes notability in any way. Wperdue (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cross Sale

Contested prod, I place it here for your consideration. The original concern was lack of notability. Tone 14:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a contested prod? I see no challenge to it - it just never got actioned. SpinningSpark 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article opposed the deletion on my talkpage after the article had already been deleted. --Tone 15:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Sounds marginally notable, but Google search yields a bunch of unreliable sources related to this usage, and a lot of hits related to Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association or crosses. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article may be accurate, but it is hardly encyclopedic and seems not to have met notability requirements. To expand on the history above, this article was removed by prod in 2006, recreated at some point, removed by prod in 2008, and then restored when the article creator made a request to the deleting admin (Tone) just now. Seems most of the community has been perfectly happy to let this article stay dead in the past. Indrian (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't agree that the article is unencyclopedic, it defines a marketing term and gives some of its origin and history which is certainly a suitable subject and correctly treated. Its main problem is the lack of referencing. I found a couple of passing mentions in books [11],[12] but nothing that could be used to build the article. Everything else online is either even more tangential or not WP:RS. In short I cannot ever see this being expanded into a substantial article, especially as its use seems to be limited to a handful of large UK stores only. The material has a place on Wikipedia, but imo it is as part of a broader article. If there were a general article on "sale" that would be where it should be, but quite to my astonishment no such article exists. January sales redirects (not entirely appropriately imo) to Christmas and holiday season and the sale dab page points (for this meaning) to Discounts and allowances, again, not exactly the same thing. My suggestion to the author, if they are willing, is to work on the article in user space, expanding it to a more general article on "sale (retail)" or some such title. SpinningSpark 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Employee experience management

Sounds very much like an advert, but am not sure if a speedy deletion is needed. Queenie 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be genuine management/human resources terminology for which there is a lot of material available. Needs a copyedit though, seems to be written by a non-english speaker. SpinningSpark 16:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This term is in line with 'customer experience management'and it is modern approach toward 'internal marketing' based on the employees experiential needs. It is also agree with fresh movement in marketing (experience economy, experiential marketing, ...), which are emphasized by awesome scholars and practitioners like Berry, Schmitt, Holbrook, Meyer, Schwager, Caru, Cova, Pine, Gilmore and so on. Besides, there is not any adv. or copyright problem. --Kaveh.abhari (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of experience applies to the both external and internal customers (e.g. O'loughin & Szmigin, 2005; Schmitt, 2003). Therefore, EEM is 'Customer Experience Management' but for 'Internal Customers'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.57.243 (talk) 10:19, 5 April 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 01:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for delete since it's logical and reasonable according the many studies by scholars such as Enzminger, 2005; Grace & O’Cass, 2004; Harris, 2007; Lloyd, 2006; Meyer & Schwager, 2007; Millard, 2006; Mosley, 2007; Rahman, 2005; Schmitt, 2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.57.243 (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cult. Procedural close: the redirect itself has already been done. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cultist

nn term Gloryarea12345 (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, but a cult member is a cultist, so redirect to cult. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a redirect to cult five times in its edit history already. Whether it should be has been discussed on its talk page. And there's no involvement of the deletion tool, or any other administrator tools, in making it a redirect again. A deletion nomination is not the answer, here. Don't always reach for {{subst:afd1}} whenever you see a problem article. It's not the only tool in the toolbox. Oftentimes, as in this case, you have the tool yourself for fixing the problem. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we maybe protect the redirect to avoid the problem in the future? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no pressing need for doing so. It's not being edited very frequently. The article stood untouched for a year and a half at one point. And why should we prevent an editor coming along later who can prove everyone else wrong by finding that an article can be written, from doing so? Anyone is supposed, in general, to be able to edit here. If there's a dispute as to whether the article should be a redirect or not, and if that causes an edit war, then we protect to prevent the edit war, and to encourage (further) talk page discussion. But there's no reason to protect the article now, when that hasn't happened. Indeed, such protection would stop ordinary editors from exercising the "R" part of the B-R-D cycle. There's no reason that administrators are the only ones who should have that function. Everyone has the edit tool, and that's the tool that is appropriate to this kind of situation. Not an administrator one. The administrator tool is there to prevent the edit tool from being mis-used for reverting when using it for discussion is called for. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. The redirect has an obvious target and the current article is about a made up word. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect. (actually, I've already done it). The article which replaced the redirect is incoherent nonsense and does not really deserve such a formal discussion. SpinningSpark 15:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indians commemorated in the editorial page of the New York Times

Unsourced, extremely broad and narrow list. Delete Secret ^account 14:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete terrible precedent; "commemorated" is a bit of weaselword - does that mean mentioned? eulogized? the subject of an editorial? by the NYT or by any other guest editor? letter writer if the letter appears on the "editorial page"? Anyway, whatever it may mean do we want 200 nationalities times thousands of newspapers who may commemorate people from each. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if sources were added, editorial comments occur every day in the New York Times and other newspapers. As the nominator notes, this is too broad (more than a billion people in India over the years) and too narrow (people "commemorated" on a particular newspaper's editorial page) at the same time. And why aren't Geronimo and Sitting Bull on here? Just kidding. Mandsford (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we also have List of Mexicans in the editorial of the Bombay Times? Or List of celebrity chefs mentioned in the Catholic Herald? No, a clear case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Delete, fails WP:NOTDIR point 5; "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization". SpinningSpark 16:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (Withdrawn by nominator. I'^mperator 12:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EURONIA

Fails WP:ORG. I did a news search, and could not find anything. Formerly deleted as uncontested PROD, but recreated again. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although not often appearing in discussions in the popular media, EURONIA is a benchmark interest rate. It is one of several interest rates listed everyday in the Financial Times outline of world interest rates (see last link below). It represents a London-based alternative to the continent's EONIA rate. The only difference between EONIA and EURONIA is that EURONIA is calculated from the unsecured overnight euro deposit trades originated by money brokers in London (Vaitilingam, 2001, Financial Times Guide to Using the Financial Pages, Prentice Hall, page 188).

If it does not merit its own entry, I think that information on the EONIA/EURONIA distinction should be included in the EONIA definition on Wikipedia or in the discussion on SONIA (also London-based). In fact, EURONIA is referenced in the discussion of SONIA on the British Bankers' Association. It is also referenced in Bank of England materials regarding a possible transition to the euro, where EURONIA would replace SONIA as the benchmark rate in the UK. It is also referenced by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in their discussion of the appropriate UK bank base rates to apply.

http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=125&a=671&view=print (31 March 2009)

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/other/europe/cityguide/UK%20Euro%20changeover-glossary.pdf (31 March 2009)

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/other/europe/cityguide/UK%20Euro%20changeover-A4.pdf (31 March 2009)

http://www.icaew.com/index.cfm/route/156225/icaew_ga/en/Technical_and_Business_Topics/Guides_and_publications/Knowledge_guides/Knowledge_Guide_to_Base_Rates (31 March 2009)

http://markets.ft.com/ft/markets/reports/FTReport.asp?dockey=MNY-300309 (31 March 2009)

Johnbluedorn (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agreed that it is listed in the FT, but is that all we are ever going to be able to say about it? Maybe some of our financial experts could comment, but at the moment this does not look like it will ever be more than a couple of sentences so should be merged into an appropriate article. SpinningSpark 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the sort of material an encyclopedia should have information on, along with all the pop culture. But it might be even better if merged with EONIA DGG (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Combined article would be best. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (nominator's change of vote) If it is listed in the Financial Times every day, then it is most obviously notable, since it seems to me to be independent of EONIA (i.e. it is not a sub-index), per WP:ORG. If I have misunderstood, and it is part of EONIA, I would vote for a merge. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:21, 2 April 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 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by SchuminWeb, (CSD A7, was an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

El Dog

Notability Gloryarea12345 (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 31 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) 00:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, should have gone through the speedy deletion route, fails WP:BAND. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing Mine

Declined speedy. Article is blatant advertising for a company that is barely a month old and has not achieved notability. The supposed "sources" are either non-existent, do not mention this company, or are self published. I still think it's a speedy, but others apparently disagree, so here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article in its current form is blatant spam. The article was de-spammified by Ged UK (talk · contribs), who declined the speedy, and then the spammy content was re-added by the creator, Cwc06 (talk · contribs). The references in both versions of the article are blatant puffery. They are either a) press releases or b) invalid urls. A Google News Archive search for sources returns no relevant results. ~~IMO, this should have been speedily deleted; the article made no assertion of importance to pass A7.~~ Cunard (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are these sources legit? [13], and [14] Both are written specifically about the company. The other sources I have found are all very transparently press-releases: [15]. I think all but the first article may simply be the same re-published release. The first article seems more legit to me though. I'd say to keep the article if we can find two or more reliable sources covering it in the same detail as the first one. Cazort (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is a legitimate source that I somehow missed when I was going through the references in the article. The second source is and reads like a press release , so in total, this article contains only one reliable source. My delete stands, but if you are able to uncover another reliable reference, I will switch my vote to keep. Cunard (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel particularly compelled to look for more, especially given the spamming situation. :-) Cazort (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one from Adotas is the only ref that even comes close, and it is an industry-insider website, I'm not sure they meet the bar of WP:RS either. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Markovich292 05:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Ged UK 13:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not sure why speedy was declined. Spammy article about a non-consumer business, not referenced to anything other than local or quasi-local (i.e. advertising industry related, non-general-interest) publications. Reads like an ad brochure, and therefore ought to be deleted even if the business were notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Industry mags/websites can rarely be considered reliable. Most of the material is supplied by the companies themselves, but even when written by the magazine staff they are under great pressure to keep it positive. I agree the article reads like spam and in the absence of any truly RS, I am for deleting. SpinningSpark 17:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of GED recipients

Unsourced list that has the potential of being a WP:BLP nightmare, not even worth a category Delete Secret ^account 13:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An extremely minor and non-defining characteristic that no doubt applies to many thousands of notable people. Chronically unmaintainable list with the potential for BLP issues. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how major or minor this is, but is there perhaps a source for the recipients we can cite on the GED page? That would be the best of both worlds. Include the info, no long unmaintainable lists. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:07, 31 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) 00:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of these people didn't even get GED's; they recieved equivalents in their home countries. The BLP nightmare and extreme lack of sources is troubling. Nate • (chatter) 00:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How can you source a list like this? Agree that it's a BLP trainwreck --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur regarding sourcing problems and trivial nature of this intersection. How about a list of all celebrities with regular high school diplomas? College degrees? Driver's licenses? JJL (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and will end up containing a ridiculous number of people. --Pstanton (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose next someone will create List of people who graduated from elementary school... 76.66.193.69 (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Rosenbaum

Two authors whose claim of notability is being the co-authors of a yet-to-be-released book. The book is nominated as well. Looks altogether promotional in nature. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 12:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are also nominated. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 12:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails notability. --Pstanton (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claims made for notability. LK (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as an article without any content. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tremulousness

With no incoming links from articlespace and no significant amount of visitors [16] There is no need to have this link. Wikipedia is not a dictionary so links like this should not be encouraged for obscure words that aren't being used. Mgm|^(talk) 12:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I would say transwiki it over to wiktionary, but (a) they've already got an entry and (b) there's literally nothing on the WP page to send over to WT. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:02, 31 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. Thanks to those who cleaned the article up. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WKNZ

The article is titled WKNZ, but repeatedly mentions WLVZ as the callsign. However, the link between the station and either of the callsigns isn't actually backed up with reliable references. Nor is the notability of the station established. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Calls are WLVZ. WLVZ currently redirects to K-LOVE, which is appropriate since the station only carries the national feed without any deviation (since it's owned by the Educational Media Foundation, which pretty much buys stations just to have them turn into mega-translators of KLRS), so all this article is telling us is that it's a station playing K-LOVE. If it's that, you're not going to find sources because it's a repeater of a national network. Nate • (chatter) 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Article has been corrected with correct information and now meets full notability. Nate • (chatter) 09:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:24, 2 April 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 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - All radio stations with a license are notable. Period, plain and simple. The mistakes in the call sign are obviously someone mistaking the K key for the L key....easily fixable. Not a deletable offense. Again, all radio stations with a license are notable. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 5, 2009 @ 13:09
- Page updated with correct information for WKNZ (which is a radio station in Delaware). - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 5, 2009 @ 13:19
Speedy Keep as all government-licensed broadcast radio stations are generally notable, per the guidelines on notability and years of precedent. If there are errors to be fixed in the article, that's a call for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: In any case, it took only a few moments of searching to find a number of third-party sources which I have now used to expand this article somewhat. - Dravecky (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Pasciuta

Non-notable individual, fails WP:V. Ghits: "Andrea Pasciuta". --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 11:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC) --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 11:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, was unable to find any independent sources about this person, fails WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, not sufficiently notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long Tail Magic

Spamtastic software with no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, more of an advertisement than an encyclopædia article. Software doesn't appear to be that notable, either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete = No third-party references, not notable. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What a spamfest. ukexpat (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a legal software used by Internet Marketers. Do we only talk about products owned by billion dollar companies? Tell me what do you require for validation? The product has it's own web site (LongTailMagic.com), it has an online demo, product is available for immediate purchase, it has a list of customers using it. Do mention if we are only going to list products from Microsoft, Google or other Big companies and not let the small companies list their products that are of the same potential as the big companies. Blokhra (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please see my reply on your talk page. In brief, see WP:SPAM, WP:N and WP:RS. Other stuff exists is not a helpful argument against deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: From this image page, it also appears that you may have a conflict of interest. You are strongly cautioned against writing articles to which you have a close personal/financial etc connection. – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would it be worth editing this article and making it a complete software spec sheet or would everyone just want to have it deleted because it doesn't make sense to have product information listed here, besides of course the big giants?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blokhra (talk • contribs)

It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the software is a big giant, it's that the article isn't notable under our standards. The article is written like an advertisement instead of an encyclopedia article (and making it into a software spec sheet is just as bad - we want encyclopedia articles, not software manuals or spec sheets). There's precious little information about this software that is verifiable in reliable sources written by third parties. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'm... melting...!

Tom Clancey's H.A.W.X. Bugs and Errors

Wikipedia is not a place to store information on bugs and how to fix them. There may be errors like this, yes, but 1) they shouldn't have their own page and 2) until there is a better reference than a fan forum they shouldn't be here at all. Ironholds (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. Hopefully this'll snow and get taken care of quickly. GlassCobra 12:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the article is fact based. The facts are provided and confirmed by All users of this software. So that's OK. *ahem* Seriously, delete per massive failure of WP:NOT -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a bug tracker. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete effectively a game guide, and the only source is a web forum. JJL (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the bugs were notable, then perhaps it would be worth mentioning in the main article (as per my merge proposal), but as yet noone has come forth with any evidence of notability apart from a forum (an unreliable source). Astronaut (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant game guide content and original research. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiability and per WP:NOT as indicated by everyone above. Nothing verifiable to merge, and a redirect is not feasible since "Clancy" is misspelled as "Clancey" in the title. MuZemike 17:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That and the irregular capitalisation of "Bugs" and "Errors". Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's snowing Wikipedia is not a gameguide or instruction manual. The first post on the talk page: "This article cannot be merged with the original H.A.W.X. wiki page. This do to many prior attempts to add these facts to the H.A.W.X. page before. They have been removed many times over by someone trying to hide the facts about this faulty software. All the information added here is true and up to date. making edits to this page to make it more factual would be more appropriate." IE this is a fork apparently created to spread the truth! No thanks, virtually every game has bugs and virutally every game's bugs are either pointed out in multiple reliable sources or not worth the time of day. Someone another 18:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per statement listed in the PROD I placed 30 March 2009, as well as tags I added 30 March 2009. 130.85.241.123 (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Apologies, 130.85.241.123 post was by me, forgot to log in.Compassghost (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: if it's not notable for inclusion in the main article, why would it be worthy of its own article?? _spǝǝp ^spɹoʍ3100ʇnɯɐɥɐq 06:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete. Per above WP:GAMEGUIDE. MLauba (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logicomix

Future comic; fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL Chzz ► 11:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close' Article already deleted. Junk Police (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Neutrally comment I still can't find how the Google search for it.Junk Police (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:00, 5 April 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 10:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —I'^mperator 12:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Be kind to philosophical literature. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:21, 7 April 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 00:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and JamesBurns. Junk Police (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynastree.com

A Google search seems to return only the site itself, ads or blogs. Moreover, the websites the article mention are in the same categories, and sometimes do not even mention Dynastree. It looks like an ad to me. Goochelaar (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. where's the coverage? see Google news search [17] LibStar (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball keep - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures

nn memes. Zhongyunghe (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I am not familiar with the language of the references so feel uneasy about passing judgment here. However I did find interesting points (in English) raised in the talk page hereto: Quality improvements and also Media coverage. Media coverage refers to a French source (I can read French). This source claims that the creatures originated as a Wiki hoax! Without being able to comment on the Chinese text, I think that some of the English sources may meet notability guidelines, eg New York Times. Looks like a difficult case. In my opinion, opinions of editors familiar with the language of the references should be given before passing judgment. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and suggest early closure. Whatever else can be said about the subject, the reason given for deletion is entirely too insubstantial to justify debating the suitability of an article that appears to be impressively referenced to mostly foreign language sources. Note also that starting this AfD is apparently this user's only edit. This is particularly problematic when the subject of the article apparently involves tweaking the noses of Red Chinese censors. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Quote Czar Brodie: "This source claims that the creatures originated as a Wiki hoax!" No, rather it is a Baidu Baike hoax. This article is about the meme which arose from the hoax. This event is very significant in Chinese modern culture, ask any Chinese netizen and they would have heard of it. Also, it also has to do with resistance against censorship. This meme is very notable, saying that it is non-notable is blatant ignorance. Zhongyunghe, this AfD nomination is without justification, reason or negational evidence, and is therefore a Argument from ignorance. If you've had the time to research, I can assure you that you will definitely change your mind. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Zhongyunghe was only created very recently, and had his first edit at 11:24, 31 March 2009 on Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures, see Special:Contributions/Zhongyunghe. So far he has only had three edits, on Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 31. Possibly a single-use troll. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 22:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additionally, "Zhong yang he" (中央和) means "Chinese Central harmony", central referring to government, harmony possibly linking to nationalism. I'd say he is possibly a politically-driven troll, given by the details present at this time. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 22:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, regarding the user's intentions, what the user should have done if he were to have a disagreement with the article, is to put a message on the talk page beforehand. A direct AfD appears suspicious, is inconsiderate to those who have contributed in good faith, with good faith, and resembles trolling, especially as the AfD process appears to be the only edits by the user. This is how I interpret everything. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 05:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
regarding my quote, the French source (which is referred to in the article) states "Tout a commencé lorsqu’un Chinois a mis en ligne sur le Wikipédia local, Baidupedia, une fiche sur cette fausse créature...", which translates as "the hole thing started when a Chinese person put on line in the local Wikipedia, Baidupedia, a page on this false creature...". I was not aware of this being a reference to Baidu Baike, as when I clicked on the link at the French site (the link being the words sur le Wikipédia local, Baidupedia ) this directed me to Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures at wekipedia. re very notable, can you translate some of the references to shew what they are and how they address the subject? re User:Zhongyunghe, I think it is not correct to read into an editors name or motivations, nor to refer to the editors amount of posts; see WP:ADHOM. All are permitted to take an article to this Articles for Deletion page, whether they be members of the Chinese government or not. What is at question here is not User:Zhongyunghe but the article Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures. Please do not make presumptions on other users. What is at question here is whether the article is notable (at last I think this is what is meant by "nn", ie WP:NN). Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to Zhongyunghe's statement: "nn memes." How can you justify that it is non-notable without any backup argument? This AfD should not have even surfaced in the first place.
  - Do a google.cn or baidu.com search for "草泥马" and tell me how many results you get. Also check Baidu Tieba.
  - This meme has been mentioned in the New York Times, France 24, how is it non-notable?
  - The Chinese government has criticized the publicity of the meme. This is how serious it is.
  - Regarding quality, I believe that this article meets WP standards. Check how many views this article has. This article has even been slashdotted [18].
  - There are Chinese and Japanese WP articles on the meme. Why aren't they up for AfD?
  - If this article is so controversial to the point that it attracts trolls, why don't we protect the page?
  - There are a few English sources. Do any of them contradict to what has been stated in the article, and by myself here?

These are my arguments. Kindest regards, -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A very notable subject in China, very famous. Fits wikipedia perfectly. Also, this exists on other projects as well.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Czar Brodie regarding sources: Sources are as follows:

Sources

【贴图】百度十大神兽_水能载舟亦能煮粥 - A description of every single animal in the meme.
Hoax dictionary entries about legendary obscene beasts - Eng source describing the meme.
Wines, Michael (11 March 2009). "A Dirty Pun Tweaks China’s Online Censors". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/world/asia/12beast.html?em. Retrieved on 12 March 2009. - NY Times report on the meme.
山寨版“动物世界”介绍草泥马走红网络_资讯_凤凰网 (Phoenix TV official website) - Phoenix TV article regarding the meme.
网友创造"十大神兽" 百度百科沦为粗口百科 - CNBETA article, explains that the meme is widespread in China.
网友创造“十大神兽” 百度百科难避低俗质疑 CCTV.com 中国中央电视台 - China Central Television brief details on Cao Ni Ma.
The Song of the Grass Mud Horse - YouTube - Meme video
国新办等七部委开展整治互联网低俗之风专项行动 - net.china.cn regarding internet filtering
对传播低俗内容网站的曝光与谴责(第5号) - more on internet filtering
Chinese Bloggers’ Respond to the Internet Crackdown - China Digital Times - ENG source, explains the relation to censorship in China
世界四大珍稀物种雅蠛蝶，草泥马，法克鱿，菊花蚕(有图有真相) - Info on the 4 main animals
百度贴吧十大神兽吧 - from Baidu Tieba, meme info
百度十大神器 = a meme parody, "Baidu 10 Mythical Weapons"
百度十大神秘美食 - 金枫网络 - a meme parody, "Baidu 10 Secret Delicacies"
卧槽，又来一个！百度十大神秘美食~~ - a meme parody, "Baidu 10 Secret Delicacies"
Example of meme following: CCTV Fire: Funny Photoshops By Chinese Netizens, chinaSMACK (Resulting from manipulated images of the Beijing Television Cultural Center fire)
草泥马 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
2009科普之--草泥马(原创整理)
童声合唱《草泥马之歌》 - Youtube - Meme video
动物世界特别篇马勒戈壁上的草泥马! - Youtube - Meme video
什么是草泥马 - Youtube - Meme video
Plush Your Mother: Grass Mud Horse Dolls In China - details of the plush dolls being sold in China.
法克鱿 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
雅蠛蝶 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
菊花蚕 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
鹑鸽 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
吉跋猫 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
尾申鲸 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
吟稻雁 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
鹳狸猿 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
达菲鸡 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
潜烈蟹 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.

Regards, -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is clearly notable, as it has had non-trivial coverage in multiple publications in more than one country, thus satisfying WP:N. The French quote refers to Baidu Baike as 'the Chinese Wikipedia', which initself is irrelevant to the issue. The key is that this hoax has been widely reported and the 'animals' are widely referred to by Chinese citizens on the Internet. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having gone through the references (I do not speak Chinese so my view may be flawed), I can come to the following summary: 1) the article is about a hoax, however Wikipedia does have articles about notable hoaxes, see WP:NOHOAXES#Hoaxes vs. articles about hoaxes. 2) while many if not most of the sources are self published WP:SPS, i.e. youtube, open wikis, (the Chinese wiki Baidu Baike), blogs (PhoenixTV)...etc, some of these sources may pass WP:SELFPUB (but not all). 3) Several of the references do give credible notability, e.g. The New York Times. 4) My concern is that the self published references outbalance the notable references (see 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources at WP:SELFPUB); and there are few English references, (see WP:NONENG). However, to many self published sources and not enough English sources is not, in my view, reason to delete. The article needs a good clean up, not deletion. Article can claim to have notability, accordingly - keep. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC). post scriptum thanking User:benlisquare for the list of references, but I had noted them on articles page. CB. post post scriptum, an amusing thought, it is the 1^st of April, how appropriate. CB.[reply]

Keep: Notetable subject both within China and oversea Chinese community, important subject within the topic Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China, noted by New York Times and several human rights group as notable efforts by Chinese to overcome state censorship, and some new Chinese characters were created for this meme. And lol at the User: "River Crab" Jim101 (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just posted a number of reliable sources as external links, which I intend to incorporate as references into the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it is about a hoax, it is nonetheless a notable subject that is thoroughly cited with credible news sources. Why delete a perfectly normal article? The nominator User:Zhongyunghe seems like a one-time hit-and-run troll.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep: Cultural phenomenon in the world's largest country that's been called "an icon of resistance to censorship." Clearly at least as notable as Don't tase me bro. <eleland/talkedits> 03:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep = It's notable enough to have received interest in two foreign (from China's point of view) countries, France and the US. It received full articles in the New York Times, considered the American paper of record, and Le Monde, France's paper of record. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW. This type of article has already been repeatedly discussed on AFD, and it stands no chance of survival. Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia Game

Per WP:MADEUP. decltype (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedily, if poss) - To quote the article, "The Wikipedia Game was originally created by students at school pretending to do work." If that doesn't show that it was made up one day, I don't know what does. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - surprised that the article is still here, surely speedy delete was appropriate. Snow delete anyone? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was tagged for speedy deletion under G3: Vandalism. But even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. Also, creating a page on a topic that is simply not notable is not vandalism." After a declined prod, AfD was the only option. decltype (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the speedy only declined because the reason was wrong? What about the prod? It seems a long-winded way to delete an article that's obviously going to get deleted.....Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, as far as I know, none of the criteria for speedy deletion apply to this kind of article. The author of the article contested the prod by simply removing the prod tag. decltype (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok....pesky authors :D Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Arguably speedy as a deliberate attempt to disrupt this site. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Snowball close is appropriate here. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Numerous pages with similar content to this one have been deleted in the past as non-notable - for instance, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia game, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia games, et. al. This one is no different. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:18, 31 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 10:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands–Uruguay relations

Another one of Groubani's articles, this time concerning "relations" between the Netherlands and Uruguay. The only thing on this page is saying that they have an embassy in the other country, and previous debates (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilateral relations of Ireland) have shown that merely having relations with another country is not enough to confer relations per Wp:NN. There might be some relations between the two, but the only link that works is in Dutch, a language I have no knowledge of. The other link results in a 404 error. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Dutch source gives the sizes of the populations of the relevant immigrants and emigrants, says that Uruguay does most exporting to Europe through Dutch ports (and mentions what the Dutch export to them), Dutch banking is the most active Dutch business sector in Uruguay, they also worked on cleaning the bottom of some Uruguayan river. There are no significant cultural relations or human aid being shared. In other words, no political relations to speak of (though the source mentions a couple of other links) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another article on the topic of X-Y relations for which absolutely no sources exist.Yilloslime ^T_C 20:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to suggest this is notable. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 18:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
U R Gay? What???? MuZemike 19:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources exist. The source in the article calls Netherlands the "gateway to Europe" for Uruguay, which is significant. In my opinion, the exchange of Ambassadors is a significant enough act in and of itself to confer notability, as it is an official action undertaken at the highest level due to an important bilateral relationship. If that's not enough for you, the two recently signed a treaty on customs laws [19]. Another treaty in 2005 [20], the gist of which I find it hard to get, but suffice it to say that countries without any real bilateral relationship don't bother with bilateral treaties. An agreement on investments in 1988 also "the traditional friendship existing" between the two countries (although that is in some sense just diplomatic language. There are more sources out there, but I think this is more than sufficient to show the notability of the subject. Cool3 (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the fact that ambassadors are exchanged is recorded at Diplomatic missions of the Netherlands and Diplomatic missions of Uruguay. Treaties are not inherently notable: we do not, for example, have articles on every extradition treaty or treaty of friendship out there. If you have third-party sources indicating these treaties as a body, or even one of them, are notable, that might be a start, but per WP:PSTS, we cannot on our own infer notability from the fact they were signed. And then the usual arguments: they're on opposite sides of the world, they have no historic ties and very few commercial ones, etc. Nothing to see here, really. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Russia relations

Another article about bilateral relations between two countries. While these two share embassies, there's no content actually discussing relations inside the article. It lacks cotent to the point I'd speedy delete it under criterion A3, but I'm bringing it here, because I know such an action would be controversial if done unilaterally. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Russia–Sweden relations for the sort of content an article actually needs to be viable (ignoring the fact it's unreferenced). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky to Russians they never dared to wage war with Cyprus :)) seriously, before the Crisis Cyprus was ranked third or fourth "investor" in Russian assets, so they will not. NVO (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the last crisis in Russia? Some 6-7 years ago, many people I know in Russia had their salaries paid in foreign currency, directly into Cypriot bank accounts. Of course, it wasn't just the normal Russians who took advantage of the Cypriot banking system (and of course the resultant avoidance of paying taxes in Russia), but also the Russian Mafia, and Cyprus became (if not) the number one destination for Russian money in the early 2000s. Is it still the case these days that people have their salaries paid into Cypriot bank accounts? Or am I right in remembering that inter-governmental agreements were signed in order to put a stop to this? And who can forget the Russian sale of S-300s to Cyprus in the late 90s, which caused an absolute shit-storm with Turkey and Greece (with others standing by on the sidelines opining left, right and centre). I'm struggling trying to understand the reasons why these have been brought here, even as they were they wouldn't be eligible under A3 of speedy criteria. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating (same reason)

Belgium–Russia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 6,500 news results for Cyprus Russia relations and 33,500 news results for Belgium Russia relations. That's just in English language. I haven't even touched on books as yet, although considering relations between Russia and Belgium date back to the 18th century, I can't see why one would claim they are not notable, if that is in fact what they are being brought here for, because the nomination reasoning is not clear. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning not clear? I thought I was pretty clear when I said it lacked content and that encyclopedic content could not be provided. I'd be happy to reconsider if you can find something encyclopedic in the hits you found. Just a bunch of big google numbers mean nothing especially when you didn't look at the words as a whole using quotes. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already have added materials to meet basic notability criteria. --Russavia ^Dialogue 23:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 16:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. "Sharing embassies" very much qualifies for inclusion under this title, and it is content someone out there might actually seek. As shown above, there is a lot of room for expansion as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:08, March 31, 2009 (UTC)

Sharing embassies is not enough for inclusion. There is previous precedent from similar aricles written by the same user. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a die-hard inclusionist, I very much disagree. Just because "other precedents" weren't lucky to be caught in due time does not mean deletionists can now go on with trigger-happy deletion sprees.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:35, April 1, 2009 (UTC)

Keep. There are actually does appear to be wealth of sources on these topics, so the General Notability Guidelines are fulfilled. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable enough for inclusion, there are quite a few reliable sources documenting it. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits are not the same as sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both notable and interesting. What is wrong with them? Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than sufficient references. Cool3 (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real content in the article apart from S-300 deal.DonaldDuck (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The threshold for inclusion into WP is whether the relations are notable. The S-300 deal is demonstration of the notable. Everything else can be dealt with Template:Expand or WP:BOLD. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have content, are sourced, notable. feydey (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both I don't care about precedent in this case: exchange of ambassadors is evidence of a serious relationship between two countries. I think Russavia has made some important points about the notability of the relationship between Cyprus & Russia -- although I'd like to see some reliable sources for the banking statements. As for Belgium-Russia... sorry, Mgm, but the word that comes to my mind here is silly: these are 2 established European countries who undoubtedly have had a history of interactions over common interests: technology, investments, aristocratic connections, shared interests during the 2 World Wars, the behavior of the Communist Party of Belgium, etc. -- llywrch (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one source relating to the laundering of money thru Cypriot banks, and it also includes what NVO stated above about Cyprus being a major investor in Russia, quoting "Until recently, most of the island's 14,000 or so offshore companies were Russian -- the majority "brass plate" firms with no physical operations there and opaque ownership structures.Cyprus has also become one of the largest foreign investors in Russia, due mainly to Russian money re-entering the country." -- I also remember the BBC investigation into Sibneft which revealed that the (previous - now controlled by Gazprom) "owner" of Sibneft was a lawyer operating out of a non-descript building in Cyprus? So yep, relations obviously are notable, but AfD should not be used instead of Template:Expand. I may work on the relations articles after I finish an article I am currently working on in userspace. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well Russavia, (1) when I wrote the above, there was no section in the article that mentioned this fact, so this was the only place I could ask for sources; (2) I wasn't addressing you specifically, just throwing out a suggestion to anyone who is interested in the topic; & (3) providing that link -- or a generalized reference to a series of newspaper articles or a book -- is quite sufficient in this forum. (I simply hadn't heard of this phenomena before, & expressed an interest to learn more about it.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hey Llywrch, I wasn't addressing you specifically either, I just saw your post and comments, and thought I'd throw the link in, just to show in general the notability, etc, etc, etc, etc. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - more than passes the standard of WP:N - I see no reason to treat this as an unusual case. Wily D 14:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, both are real relationships as the sources given show. Hilary T (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Hilary T (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did make other edits but User:Biruitorul got them deleted in order to discredit me. Hilary T (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary, I looked at the appropriate logs but I did not see any deleted edits for you. Can you point to where these edits were -- or did you misremember what happened? -- llywrch (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He got Kavron deleted which I edited from my first account User:Hilary T In Shoes Hilary T (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and that was patent nonsense, as the deleting administrator ruled. In no way was I attempting to "discredit" you; I was simply seeking to remove nonsense from the encyclopedia. Do review WP:AGF. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith up to the point where people start lying, then I stop. Hilary T (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The fact that they share an embassy means that have a relationship. Whatever happened to WP:BEFORE?Smallman12q (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N seems to be met here. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If diplomatic relations are not notable, then why have Template:Foreign relations of Cyprus and Template:Foreign relations of Russia? As long as Category:Bilateral relations of Cyprus and Category:Bilateral relations of Russia are populated with articles, I don't see why this particular one should be deleted. I am in favor of creating a consensus on what "relations" articles are appropriate, but not of deleting them on a case by case basis with no standard. — Reinyday, 01:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Perici Calascione

The "Times of Malta" article doesn't seem to mention the subject; the "Independent" news article does not exist. I cannot establish notability. Chzz ► 09:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The times article does mention him, second to last paragraph. It confirms that he is a candidate to be a member of the European Parliament. Seems like candidacy in an election for a multi-national governing body would be sufficient to establish notability, but I'm not familiar with specific policy in this area. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added more sources from Maltese media. These include the launch of his European Parliament campaign and some famous legal cases he worked on recently. Pierremizzi (talk) 12:55, 4 April 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 10:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep per sources added. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mikroglottika

I'm unable to locate secondary reliable sources to determine notability. Possibly there are some in German? Chzz ► 08:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi, I'll search for them. I agree with you it's necessary to add other references. --Auslli (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found the book can be sold in the major internet bookstores, and I don't know if that could be referenced, beceause i thnik this is publicity, but certainly is a notable source.--Auslli (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think we should be very careful about deleting peer-reviewed, (This journal is edited by three doctors from different universities [21], [22]) academic journals published by major int'l academic publishers (Peter Lang (publishing company)) that may otherwise not meet regular notability guidelines, especially when those journals are themselves used as sources for other Wikipedia articles (See Leonese language). These journals are a valuable resource for Wikipedia, and I think this is a good example of a situation when we should ignore the rules (a policy) — in this case WP:N (a guideline) — and keep this. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Basically because knowledge and specifically academic portals and scholar research should never be banned from Wikipedia. --Eldrewitsch (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaksy Group

I am unable to find reliable secondary sources to support notability Chzz ► 08:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this. This is an issue for many companies of the region. However, I have recently come across this http://www.summitreports.com/pdfs/oman.pdf . It is an exert in the NY Times and on the final page there is an article on The Shaksy Group with reference to their construction of the new extension to the Salalah Port. It also refers to an upcoming 30 million dollar contract with PDO (Petroleum Development Oman).
"One of Shaksy Group’s recent projects is the extension of the Salalah Port. “We built the port and did the marine works for liquefied natural gas,” explains Mr. Ali. “We recently got a $30 million contract to supply pipes to PDO oil rigs.” Mr. Ali says that each of the Shaksy companies plays a role in Oman’s infrastructure development." ^[1]
Wiki.gcc (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I question the validity of this "Special advertizing supplement" - it's an ad. Chzz ► 10:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the NY Time publication:
    "The Oman supplement was created by Summit Communications (“Summit”) who is dedicated to raising the profile of the world's most dynamic emerging markets. As an independent communications agency specializing in the production of special country, regional, and sectoral promotional reports, Summit has acquired extensive experience in analyzing the issues important to the business and financial communities of the United States. Through an exclusive arrangement with The New York Times Advertising Department, Summit has published over 112 reports since 1999, reaching the most influential decision-makers in the American political, financial, and economic communities."^[2]
    Also, here is another third party source on The Shaksy Group's involvement on the Port of Salalah: http://www.zawya.com/projects/project.cfm?pid=080607092115&cc . Hani Archiroden is listed as one of two contractors for the project.Wiki.gcc (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Another third-party source"? It's not clear that the first source is third party, yet. There's no byline in the article, but it does say "advertising" on every page, and the source comprises almost in toto either direct quotes from or indirectly reported statments made by Said bin Salim Al Shaksy xyrself. That's not an independent source.
      The other source doesn't actually provide any information apart from, as you say, mentioning a company name in the field of a form. Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - [Salalah, $262m port contract] [Oman's Salalah Port to build two new berths, awards contract ] [Salalah port project in progress] all on the $262 million project worked on by Hani Archirodon.
        "Two experienced firms were chosen (Hani Archirodon and Consolidated Contractors Co. Oman) to execute the project of expanding the port by constructing two new docks."^[3]
        Oh and do note we are only talking about one subsidiary of The Shaksy Group. There are another two construction companies, an operational Oil Drilling company, as well as Oil & Gas trading companies in Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and India. Wiki.gcc (talk) 06:31, 6 April 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 10:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. From what I see it seems very notable. Also a very reputable board, namingly Salaam Al Shaksy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.wikian (talk • contribs) 08:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently sourced, considering the circumstances. DGG (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naan Avanillai II

Does not meet notability requirements for a future film, per WP:NFF Chzz ► 08:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:04, 31 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) 00:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator is right, no notability. --Pstanton (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy back to author as being a bit premature. No doubt it will get made in 4 weeks and released in 5... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Past, Present & Future(album)

WP:CRYSTAL Chzz ► 08:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In fact, can't this be speedied as re-creation of deleted content? --Clay Collier (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:57, 31 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 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Fight

WP:CRYSTAL, non-notable download-only game Chzz ► 08:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had a look around but I couldn't anything substantial and reliable that would help verify the article, or even much discussion on forums about it, which suggests to me that this is a small-time mod. Usually mods like this don't get the media attention until after they're released, and even then the vast majority get no attention. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argumenting for non-deletion.

Hi I am Severin Hansen leader of the project of Improving Fight... Don't delete the article! Go to www.devolitioncorp.webs.com to get information or www.devolitioncorp.webs.com/improvingfight.htm ! I can verify this article with any imformation you'dd like! We are currently working on the game... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danskesever (talk • contribs)

Hi Severin, please understand that this encyclopedia is not a directory of all games and mods that exist. Entries need to pass a certain notability threshold (see WP:Notability), and informatin in the article needs to be verified through independent sources (WP:V). Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mod is a milepost of the mod creation. The hole mod is improvised with no sketchs or plans. Please don't remove the game entry . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.217.226 (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Crystal balls all round. Tonywalton ^Talk 13:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this mod passes the notability threshold for inclusion. No prejudice against recreation should it get a lot of attention through ModDB or other reliable gaming press. Marasmusine (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PANTOKRAATOR

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND Chzz ► 08:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable rock band - no charts, no awards. JamesBurns (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all, g3, hoax/vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Life

Probable hoax. Article is about a supposed future television show that cannot be verified by a third-party source. It seems like the author just tried to add in every single Disney teen star into the cast list. Radiant chains (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also describe unverifiable future Disney works, written by the same author:

Radiant chains (talk) Radiant chains (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Once again we have another example of the Disneymania/Sher'qaun Johnson Vandal striking with a new sock. Multiple successful AfD's here, here, here, here, and here. Show doesn't exist, albums do not exist, and Sher'quan Johnson doesn't either. User:WhytShyt91, creater of all the articles has been blocked for disruption. Nate • (chatter) 09:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as utter tripe from a long line of the same. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:47, 31 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) 00:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tianhui Michael Li

Does not meet WP:PROF Chzz ► 08:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Should have been Speedily deleted under A7.--Unionhawk (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, it goes without saying that he fails WP:PROF, although with a record like that he has a very good chance of making it someday. I also don't think he has significant coverage under WP:BIO - the coverage on such a list would hardly count as significant. Ray^Talk 03:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Flute

No Reliable sources to assert notability Chzz ► 07:52, 31 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) 00:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability. --Pstanton (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majesty (Aeoliah's album)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Majesty (Aeoliah's album)

Non-notable album. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. No context or content, just a tracklisting. Also nominating related articles below. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: article fails to establish notability. There appears to be no evidence they charted either. JamesBurns (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actually meets WP:MUSIC#Albums, not fails as suggested above. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How???? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, per nominator. Canniba loki 16:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rubino

Fails WP:BIO, no indication that he meets the criteria for creative professionals, no indication he meets general notability guidelines. PROD removed by anon based on being selected for some "young guns" award by the Art Directors Club but the ADC doesn't strike me as being terribly notable itself and its award doesn't IMHO get its recipients over the notability threshold. Otto4711 (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable awards, news stories or reviews that I can see = no reason for inclusion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:08, 31 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) 00:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven Chakras (Crystal Illumination)

Non-notable album. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. No context or content, just a tracklisting. Also nominating related article below. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence this charted, no significant coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Love (album)

Non-notable album. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. No context, just a tracklisting. Also nominating related articles below. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: article fails to establish notability, no charts. JamesBurns (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Meets criteria for WP:MUSIC because they are the albums of the notable musician Aeoliah. The criteria reads "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia."; that plus the reviews on Allmusic.com establishes these articles as keepers. Untick (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have written an intro for each of the 3 articles to provide context for the article, thereby addressing the nom's stated concern. Also added link to allmusic.com for 3rd party independent reviews to establish notability for individual albums. Untick (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read that section "officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles". This does not mean that any album by a notable artist is suitable for inclusion. This still does not satisfy WP:GNG with multiple third party sources. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:37, 6 April 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 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:MUSIC#Albums, not fails as suggested above. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How? Which criteria at WP:MUSIC does it pass? Nouse4aname (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all per WP:NALBUMS; semi-fictional articles, with no relevant information to establish notability. Canniba loki 15:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Titanic (1997 film). MBisanz ^talk 10:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm King of the World!

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I'm King of the World!

A line from a movie; poss could be merged into the movie; no RS / significant secondary sources; unlikely to evolve into an article beyond a few lines. Surely we can't have an article for every 'famous' movie line. Chzz ► 07:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the article somehow indicated it was heavily parodied or something, I would've supported keeping this in some form, but as it stands, it's entirely trivial. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly redirect to Titanic (movie) --Clay Collier (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a new section in Titanic (1997 film). Bearian (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Shaun

no indication of real life notability; no sources. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The phrase "real life notability" is usually uttered in relation to articles on fiction. Since this is the pseudonym of a supposedly real person, I feel the need to clarify this is a bio, not fiction. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable amateur musician. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: MySpace muso. No evidence of any releases charting. Trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC—no significant media coverage, no hits, etc., etc.. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Speedy keep all and nominate one by one, as one can not judge each of the articles on their merits in such a group nomination. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados–Chile_relations

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Barbados–Chile relations

Non-notable foreign relations. No wars, exceptional events, common origins, non-notable inmigracy data that has nothing to do with foreign relationships (not refugees from wars, no notable reasons to choose that country, no political refugees from that country) etc. Only embassies, embassors, some diplomatic events and awards, belonging to the same associations in non-notable manners. Info already covered more efficiently by Foreign relations of Chile, Chilean diplomatic missions and List of diplomatic missions in Chile. Part of a series of short articles created by a few users. The article list is taken from Template:Foreign_relations_of_Chile.

Previous deletions and consensus for similar articles, click on the word "show" on the right corner to read them.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile-Colombia relations Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luxembourg–Serbia_relations Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peru–Romania_relations Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bilateral_relations_of_Ireland Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Canada–Moldova_relations

Americas

~~Argentina–Chile relations~~ neighbour countries, long history of disputes and agreements
Barbados–Chile relations
~~Bolivia–Chile relations~~ couple of wars, chile has a corridor to the sea that is claimed by bolivia
Brazil–Chile relations
Canada–Chile relations
~~Chile-Colombia relations~~ already deleted by SNOW at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile-Colombia relations
Chile-Haiti relations
~~Chile–Mexico relations~~ see my comment below
Chile-Paraguay relations
~~Chile–Peru relations~~ neighbours, border wars since the Inca empire
Chile–Uruguay relations
~~Chile – United States relations~~ very fluffed entry, needs to be expanded with how US's support to Pinochet affected its later relationship

Asia

Chile–Israel relations

Europe

Armenia–Chile relations
Austria–Chile relations merge and redirect, it has one notable fact
Bulgaria–Chile relations
Chile–Croatia relations
~~Chile–Cyprus relations~~ already deleted by SNOW at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile–Cyprus relations
~~Chile–Estonia relations~~ already nominated Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chile–Estonia_relations
Chile–Finland relations
Chilean-Greek_relations
Chile–Hungary relations
Chile–Ireland relations merge and redirect, it has some notable stuff
Chile–Italy relations
Chile-Luxembourg relations
Chile–Malta relations
Chile–Romania relations
Chile–Russia relations
Chile–Serbia relations
~~>Chile–Turkey relations~~ the article is well cited and has important information (other than embassy location) about bthe relations of both countries.
Chile–Ukraine relations

Oceania

~~Australia–Chile relations~~ a good bunch of trade agreements, fishing agreements for the South Pacific and stuff, also both states are big exporters of farm products so they have common lobbying interests in the international market

Some of the articles were already labelled with PRODs by other users, because they felt that they had no notability. Enric Naval (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet looked enough at most of these, but strong keep on Chile – United States relations. The United States was a major role in the 1973 coup which led to the downing of Salvador Allende and the rise of Augusto Pinochet, and that event has affected their relationship for a long time. Also, the nomination only mentioned the AFDs for bilateral pairs which were deleted, to be fair you should mention Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Canada–Mongolia_relations which ended with a keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stroke out the Chile-US one.

I wasn't aware of the Canada-Mongoliaone. The first commenter cited some sources for notability, like Canada being the second largest investor in Mongolia. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These policies should be well discussed and established. E.g. Should an article be up for deletion if there's no High Commission/Embassy etc. Because in that case much of the US-Caribbean relations could be up for deleition too since the U.S. only has a few embassies in the Caribbean region. E.g. Or like if there's a trade deal in place or not. etc. Whether the leaders have visited one another. etc. A global rules base should be established on what forms of _whatever_-_whatever_ relations should be entertained. CaribDigita (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest problem I see is that they fail the general notability guide in the first place, by not having third-party independient sources talking about those relationships, so they wouldn't qualify for an independient article in the very first place, and should have never been splitted out from their mother articles in the first place. (the "mother articles" being Foreign relations of Chile, Chilean diplomatic missions and List of diplomatic missions in Chile) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind government sources have widely been accepted as being credible across Wikipedia. If not, there are many articles on Wikipedia that would need to have sources from Governments removed or complimented if they aren't credible sources. E.g. Almost the entire basis of the North American Union being called just a "theory" is that the governments of the US, Canada and Mexico have put out statements saying there are no movements by them towards a North American Union. Without their statement as a source, then what is to say that the North American Union is just a theory? CaribDigita (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I think you are confusing notability with verifiability. Government sources a great (and usually very appropriate) for establishing facts, and for that reason they get cited all the time. But notability is different. The main question is not, "Are these sources creditable," but rather, "Has this topic been discussed to a significant degree outside of wikipedia and by sources other than those close to the topic?" If the answer to the later is "no," then wikipedia should not have a stand alone article on the topic. (The topic could still be covered by wikipedia somerwhere, just not in a stand alone article.) So in a nutshell, yes government sources are widely accepted as credible across wikipedia, but doesn't mean that they can be used to establish the notability of a topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chile–Italy,Greece and Russia relations too.

errr, this is because of the inmigrants? Those are already covered by Greeks in Chile, Italian Chilean and Russians in Chile. These are articles in foreign relationships, not in inmigracy. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep all and nominate one by one, as one can not judge each of the articles on their merits in such a group nomination. Take for example, Australia-Chile relations, where there is a free trade agreement in place (this is notable), and I see numerous sources going back to early 1900s at [23], and also Australian investments in Chilean copper under Pinochet (who was the magnate who was involved here?). And Russia-Chile relations, there's some 7,000 news results, and funnily enough only 3 days ago it was announced there would be a state visit by Chilean president to Russia to further expand ties. This nomination should be kept in its entireity, because the way in which it has been done is potentially disruptive as we are unable to judge each article on its merits. I have to question why many articles were nominated, and then immediately stricken (by the nom?). AfD is not a "requests for expansion". Bring them back one by one. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No way. Most of those articles are simply without merit, many have been already been proded, and several AfDs have already been closed by SNOW. There is precedent for mass AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilateral relations of Ireland (read the reasoning of the closing admin) and the time can be extended if there are unresolved issues.

Also, don't use google searches as proof (the ones you are using have a lot of false positives). Make a bit of legwork and point at specific sources, that's what will save a specific article. Do it like this:

for Chile-Australia: "[the Minister of Chile, in a 1947 address to the Victoria League (a local bussinessmen association?), referred to] the relations that existed between Australia and Chile during the past century, particularly during the gold rush years"[24] (this source actually says that there was little contact between the two countries even during the gold rush, and not much inmmigracy [25] pages 195-197) and talks about a bilateral trade agreement, a "regional Fisheries Management Organisation for the South Pacific" and some other stuff like "Australia had worked closely with Chile in pushing the case for freeing up agricultural trade." [26]

For Chile-Russia I can only find the break of diplomatic ties in 1947 in WWII, which should be covered in the history articles, and some meetings, but the sort of meetings that are not notable because they get done with any visiting countrty, and the usual declarations of friendship and goodwill. Point at specific notable stuff. And you don't have to convince me, you have to convince other commenters and also convince the admin who will close this discussion.

(and sorry if I came out too harsh) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And did you bother to check in Russian or Spanish? Also, one who has only been able to find that diplomatic relations were broken off in 1947 (after WWII btw), obviously has not done a search, and dare I say it lacks a knowledge of general world history (at least when this topic is concerned); given the Allende link. Anyway, I've established basic notability for that article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados–Chile

Barbados outlines Chile as one of its principle diplomatic relations in the neighbouring Latin American region.

See here and select "Barbados & Latin America" then "Go".

It states. "Though Barbados' only diplomatic representation in the Latin America region at the moment is through its embassy in Caracas, expansion of diplomatic and consular representation is being given serious consideration by the Ministry. Currently, however, within the Latin America region, Barbados' principal relationships are with: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela" under your suggestion the only notable tie with Latin America would be Venezuela. I have no problem with just working on that article if all the rest would be regularly up for deletion though. I strongly look forward to hearing what the upcoming consensus is.

CARICOM and Chile are considering a the creation of a free trade deal. "CARICOM/Chile Relations"

CaribDigita (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I see all of that as diplomatic fluff, florid statements in documents that get published only in embassy pages, or in newspaper articles that parrot mindlessly whatever fluff politicians spout out when visiting another country. You can't trust what those documents say because you can't distinguish the real notable stuff from the exaggerations. Those sources are not independient, not third-party, not reliable.

I would only keep articles with strongly sources, and those sources showing notable stuff like, dunno, bitter border wars, long-standing mutual economical agreements that have important long term effects in their economies, strong cultural ties that influence their foreign relationships, old wars that still influence the current public opinion about the other country. Anything less notable than that is not enough to write a good solid article, will only be a list of trivia and indiscriminate info (WP:IINFO), and can be covered on the main articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chile–Mexico relations

(comment moved from nomination) Chile and Mexico has a long history of diplotic relations, migration and trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentren (talk • contribs) 07:53, 31 March 2009

Please provide sources for these relationships, or simply explain what the relationships are so we can search for sources. The articles Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Chile don't mention any of that. (by the way, thanks for striking the Chile-Turkey one, I had missed the reference to the statues)

P.D.: I found some myself The agreement of economic complementation between Mexico andChile, a 3 year old economic cooperation treaty [27], Treaty of free commerce between Chile and Mexico 1999, Chile-Mexico: two transitions front to front --Enric Naval (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —J.Mundo (talk) 20:12, 31 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) 00:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Hutter

Created by subject. No notability other than a self-published website. The article for the website (Trendlines) was deleted as non-notable long ago. NJGW (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Earlier the article included unreferenced puffery, including being the first to create some particular kind of display on a website, and it wasn't clear that he had achieved notability for it even if it were true. As for the rest of it, it basically says he has a website, and he does stuff. Also，here's what I wrote to WilyD when he denied my speedy request on the grounds that the article "transparently asserts significance". —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. WP:SPAM, WP:BIO. THF (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources are provided from which notability can be judged. Per WP:AUTO, we strongly discourage people from writing about themselves. The creator of this article has also edit-warred to promote his own ideas in other articles, as reported at the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. He has 37 links to his own self-published web site (trendlines.ca) in Wikipedia at the moment. EdJohnston (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam if we can, otherwise Delete when the AFD expires. DreamGuy (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G3. Obvious hoax and blatant disruption; WP:SNOW — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seksi Pipol

Hoax. There is no Finnish MP with that name, this search tool is only in Finnish, but I think it should be fairly obvious how it works. Also Seksi means Sex in Finnish... – Sadalmelik ☎ 06:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be in the biographical sorting category rather than the media and music one? JamesBurns (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fixed. Twinkle only notified the creator and listed the Afd, but didn't create the AfD nomination itself. I copied the headers from another nomination, which happaned to be a music nom. – Sadalmelik ☎ 07:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - A Finnish MP whose name is pronounced like the English phrase 'Sexy horny people'. Obvious hoax and disruption. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, it's a legit G3 then. I read the name as if it were Finnish (pronunciation is a bit different). – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Finnish, unfortunately (or any other Fenno-Ugric language) - but the name given looks like plausible phonetics for the English phrase in question. Thanks! AlexTiefling (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Obvious hoax. No mention whatsoever in any secondary sources. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:55, 31 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) 00:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anubys Gutierrez

Either a hoax or just a failure of WP:BIO. He was born in 1991, making it unlikely that he has won "three championships" since he's about seventeen, I can find no evidence that World of Wrestling exists, in Texas or anywhere else, and the wrestlers he claims to have been in relationships with both draw similar blanks through the normal channels (en-wiki, google, etc). In addition if you look at the sites used as references; they look like they were designed in MS paint. At best someone in a tiny, unremarkable wrestling circuit, at worst a complete hoax Ironholds (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His age doesn't make me particularly suspicious. Katrina Mumaw flew a MIG 29 when she was 11, Connie Talbot received Gold and Platinum certifications for her first album when she was 6 or 7 and Louis Barnett has had a chocolate factory since he was 15. Kids can do things that are at first glance hoaxy looking because of their age, but turn out to be true. The lack of evidence is more damning. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is more that "world championships" are held about once a year at most, meaning winning three would have started when he was 14. Feats that require physical exertion for a 14 year old are legally dodgy at best; there are various biological issues with too much physical exercise, for example, 14-year-olds are incredibly unlikely to do anything but get booed out of the room, so on. Flying a mig is not based on physical strength (well, within reason - I've flown before), neither are making music and starting a factory. Early mental development that would give an 11 year old the ability to run a chocolate factory is much more common than the sort of early physical development that would allow a 14-year-old to become a professional wrestler. Ironholds (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Could he actually be a three-time championship winner at 17? Unlikely, but possible. A three-time championship winner at 17 with zero Google news hits? Even less likely. When you look at the two sources given, http://fans.wwe.com/ccg.wwe.com is just a fan page, and none of the words anubys, cuban, windtwister, or twister can be found on http://www.wowtexas.com. Finally, add in that the article creator is User:CCGAnubys (an SPA), and I think that it's just his wished-for autobiography.

Upon looking a little further, I noticed these:

Anubys Gutierrez: "Throughout his career, Wind Twister has consistently used the gimmick of being the extreme Cuban, a lifestyle he follows in real life. Depending on alignment as a crowd favorite or villain, different aspects of the culture are emphasized to encourage the desired audience reaction."
CM Punk: "Throughout his career, Punk has consistently used the gimmick of being straight edge, a lifestyle he follows in real life. Depending on alignment as a crowd favorite or villain, different aspects of the culture are emphasized to encourage the desired audience reaction."
Anubys Gutierrez:"Anubys Gutierrez has made reference to two girlfriends in his early life. During his time with KWA, he was romantically linked to professional wrestlers Stephani Trevino and Carmen Ramirez. After joining WOW, Brooks began dating Maria Ramirez, who was working there as an interviewer."
CM Punk: "Brooks has made reference to two girlfriends in his early life. During his time with Ring of Honor, he was romantically linked to professional wrestlers Shannon Spruill and Tracy Brookshaw. After joining Ohio Valley Wrestling, Brooks began dating Maria Kanellis, who was working there as an interviewer."
It appears that some or all of Gutierrez's "signature moves" are copy & pasted from Punk's, to the point where the footnote numbers are still in the article.

I think it should be speedied. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 20:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - confirmed no mention from http://www.wowtexas.com/ so is a clear hoax. The creator originally came via WP:AFC, but made the article themselves rather than getting it accepted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chew lips

Non-notable, self-promotional band article. MBisanz ^talk 05:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've already justified the creation of this page twice before. It was speedily deleted, then recreated, then marked again for speedy deletion, but was then accepted after I provided proof that the entry merits inclusion as it satisfies WP:MUSIC rule #1 - subject of multiple non-trivial published work - See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chew_lips for references. Also, I refute that there is anything self-promotional about this article; I have no connection to the band. bbc_richardb (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Needs work but thats no reason to delete on notability grounds. Google search [28] gives articles by the BBC, the NME, and on the next page, The Times. Notable in my book Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BBC coverage seems to establish notability. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability seems reasonably well established. Although the band is new and has only released the one album, it seems to be with a major label and they have attracted a fair amount of media attention. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I made an error tagging it with A7 (I removed it shortly after), but I do believe this meets the notability criteria. ∗ \ / (⁂) 06:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Group has no listing on Allmusic.com, and they include just about everybody. Just one non-charting single release is not enough to satisfy the minimum criteria of WP:CREATIVE. Untick (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment allmusic isn't the be-all-and-end-all though - if there's plenty of other good sources it should stay in. Equally, if allmusic was the only source the article probably shouldnt. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Chew Lips. Notability established via the reliable sources on the talk page, meaning WP:MUSIC is met. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSI: LV U.K. Weekly Ratings

Indiscriminate list of TV rankings that does not contribute to the topic. MBisanz ^talk 05:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Take your pick from ~~Wp:OR (there's no sources of the information - but 4 million viewers for Five seems a bit high),~~ Wp:N or Wp:IINFO. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The viewing figures are actually veriable (the BARB website), so I've struck out the OR part. The other two still apply. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nom and DitzyNizzy ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 09:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Title not something you'd search for (thus no need t redirect). Anything of use should be (if it isn't already) on the CSI main page, the LOE page, or some season page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced list. Untick (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Solution Radio Program

Contested PROD. Original PROD reason was, "No third-party verifiable reliable sources. No sign of notability. The KXAM website doesn't even bother to list this as a featured program on their front page." SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because an interest in the program, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

Delete. I can't find any significant independent sources for this local radio program. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very likely brokered programming: KXAM probably doesn't have anything on it because they paid to place their show on the station, and usually disclaim that the views of the hosts are not those of the station. No sources and likely not much notability. Nate • (chatter) 05:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment Please also note that on the show's homepage (separate from KXAM's page), there is a an appeal for advertising. This is a hallmark of brokered programming, where the entire hour is purchased from a station by the group and advertising can be solicited by the purchaser rather than the station itself. Nate • (chatter) 23:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. I don't produce it, but I listen to it and find it notable enough to include. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has not yet developed clear, specific criteria for inclusion of anything. So it's all just opinion and bias. It's wrong to exclude it on the basis of being "brokered". Without clear guidelines, I must be an inclusionist to be on the safe side and not be slanting WP. Korky Day (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = I was the person who did the research to put the PROD notice on the page, so I agree with myself here. :) There are no reliable sources available about this small radio program, and as mentioned in the original PROD notice the local station that broadcasts it doesn't even bother to put the program on its front page. It gets just a paragraph buried in among everything the station plays, shown on an interior page. In reply to Korky Day, we really should take into account if the program is brokered, since that means that the "radio program" is really paid for like a long commercial. Also in reply to Korky, we have notability and more importantly verifiability rules. This article fails both of them, and most importantly it fails the vitally important verifiability rules. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. The show is paid for by ads. People who read only the front page seem rather trite. The station aires it so they must at least defer. Freedom of Speech is not a new concept. (This vote was made by User:Hobbies beyond (talk); I am placing it here because the editor placed their vote in their edit summary rather than on this page. Also, this is the user's first contribution. Nate • (chatter) 23:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Retain. The show hosts were asked to air the show on KXAM by the station's general manager Don Sandler. He can be contacted at the station. The show's description appears at http://www.kxam.com/programs/. According to KXAM the local broadcast footprint for this show is 3 million listeners during the prime time broadcast slot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.37.168 (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC) — 68.231.37.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment = The people commenting about the front page status of the show, or the paid/non-paid status of the show, are failing to reply to the meat of arguments about this article, which is that it fails Wikipedia's notability and verifiability requirements. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sooooo....from the comments below I'm guessing that (1) there are no resources that match our verifiability and notability requirements so the only response is ad hominem attacks, or (2) everyone who thinks this article isn't a proper fit for Wikipedia really is anti-libertarian? I hope that people who come to this page understand that for all you know, I am Ron Paul. Or the reincarnation of Ayn Rand. Or Jesus. Come on, guys, respond to the arguments. If you don't, you're just making our arguments look stronger. This lack of engagement with the meat of the issue would be really bad in a discussion during the radio program... Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are Jesus :) I enjoyed your appeal to reason as I ask people to be reasonable all the time. I suspect you of no malfeasance (finger pointing just never works out for me) AND I am a Libertarian. Being a reasonable man, I must point out that Notability is subjective while Verifiability is not. This article can, for the most part, be verified. Please feel free to ask me questions about the content of the article because, as my friend Nick noted, that which we cannot prove to your satisfaction can be removed. Would Notability be influenced if I told you that many of our listeners are in other states around the country because we stream our shows, podcast them, and offer them as free MP3s at our website? We have gotten calls from as far away as Maine. Thanks for joining in this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardsutton (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we can't base an article on statements from you as a person involved in the radio program (per Wikipedia:SOURCES). Both our notability and verifiability rules are specific about what's required, and this program just doesn't match them. I'm sorry, really I am. I'm sure that you're fine people, but there are nearly seven billion fine people in the world and Wikipedia has decided by consensus to have rules regarding which of those seven billion people (and hundreds of millions of organizations, radio programs, companies, etc.) get to have articles here. :) One of the biggest requirements on Wikipedia is called "verifiability, not truth," which means that we require that facts be backed up by reliable sources. That doesn't mean that we don't trust you to tell the truth about yourself, it means that we require that the statements about you have to be written by someone in a place that has editorial control and standards. This is actually for your defense - it means that no one can come along and write "Joe Smith is a Nazi," self-publish it on Publish America or Lulu.com, and have it show up on the Joe Smith article. The statements here need to be from reliable newspapers, scholarly books, specialist encyclopedias...something that shows that (1) the subject has been looked at by several people whose jobs it is to separate fact from fiction and/or misinformation, and (2) the subject has been considered notable by several reliable secondary sources. I hope this (very wordy) explanation helps explain what's happening here. It doesn't mean that we think you're bad people or that you don't have a right to speak. It means that the encyclopedia has to decide what to keep and what not to keep, and your radio show doesn't yet have the notability to be kept. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments about verifiability have been argued. Most if not all of the content in the article is easily verifiable with little effort. If portions of the article are not verifiable, then feel free to contest the unverifiable portions, not the entire article. Regarding notability, please reference the portions of Wikipedia's notability guidelines not met by the article. Stating simply that there is no notability is not a valid argument. Nickcoons (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think you're being needlessly defensive here. We're not attacking you or your radio show. Second, I have laid out my arguments in detail in several comments here. I looked for sources, and couldn't find them, before putting the PROD notice on the page that led to this article being brought here to AfD by SchuminWeb. The replies to our arguments so far have been ad hominem statements that those who think the article doesn't fit our rules are evil anti-libertarians, or have been statements that we're wrong with no proof that we're wrong. Negation of our arguments isn't proof of anything. We've had offers of direct input from the people who make the show, but can't base an article on statements from the people on the program, as stated in WP:SOURCES. Our notability and verifiability rules are laid out in the links I gave above, and this article doesn't meet them. I don't know what to say beyond that and beyond what I've already said. It seems to me that you're saying is that because I'm not explaining the notability rules in more detail, that means I'm wrong. This is a logical fallacy. Honestly, we expect the person who closes this debate (who will be an uninvolved administrator) to weigh our arguments and we expect that person to understand the shorthand of statements like "no notability" or "no third-party sources." I know that Wikipedia's rules can sometimes be complicated and frustrating. I find them that way myself, sometimes. If you like, I can explain in more detail what's up in this discussion, if you tell me what you don't understand. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intending to be defensive, I just don't believe that your claims about verifiability are true, and I think it's easy enough to demonstrate. Let's look at what the article says and break it down a bit:

"The Libertarian Solution Radio Program is a political talk show that discusses the libertarian philosophy and its practical implementation in local, national, and world politics."

Is there a question as to what the show is, and what it discusses?

- http://www.libertariansolution.com/about/

- http://www.podcastdir.net/podcast-description-572.php

- http://www.evliving.com/2008/09/09/1236/the-libertarian-solution-launches/

"The program airs on Independent 1310 KXAM, based in Scottsdale, Arizona, Wednesdays at 7pm MST. It can also be heard live via internet streaming or in the audio archives at the Libertarian Solution website."

Is there a question as to where the show is broadcast, or how it can be listened to?

- http://www.kxam.com/programs/ (the synopsis here was written by the station, not the producers of the show)

There are also various claims about the hosts. Some of the claims are verified by providing links to the claims. Some of the claims are not substantiated, but can be. Others may not be substantiated by any referencable online source (such as the stated birthplace of Richard Sutton), and it can be argued that these individual claims can be removed. But no argument has been presented that the article as a whole is unverifiable and therefore should be deleted. Given the five minutes I spent Googling to find the above information, any argument claiming that none of the article is verifiable should hereby be dismissed.

I'm not asking you to explain the rules. I've read the rules. I'm asking you to be specific about your claims. You say there is no notability. Surely you can point to something specific in the notability rules with which the article is not compliant in order to substantiate that claim. Since the initial claim, that the article is unverifiable and not notable, is yours, isn't the burden on you to demonstrate it rather than just stating it? Isn't it only after you attempt to demonstrate your claims that you can expect anyone to attempt to refute them? Please forgive me if I've misinterpreted something. Nickcoons (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our requirements are 1) Significant, non-trivial coverage (WP:N gives as an example "The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial."), 2) Coverage that is completely independent of the subject of the article (which knocks out the libertariansolution.com source as coming from the source, the www.podcastdir.net link as a mere reflector of the libertariansolution.com RSS feed, and the evliving.com link as a reprinted press release that is sourced directly to you, Nick Coons), and 3) Several other requirements, but since I've now shown that the given three references can't be used here, we don't need to go through those requirements. As to notability, you're asking me to prove a negative, and I'm not going to play that game. The notability requirements are positive requirements - that is, they give goals that must be met. There is no third-party who has taken notice of this radio show. There is no significant coverage. No one, in short, has considered this program worth writing an article or book about in the New York Times or National Review or a scholarly work about libertarian radio shows. I did actually Google your show before putting the original PROD notice on the article, so I know what I'm talking about. Thus, replying to your snide comment about "five minutes I [Nick Coons] spent Googling", I actually did the research before marking the article for deletion. You don't understand our notability and verifiability rules, as shown by the three links you gave, and I'm sorry about that. I've done my best to explain, but I'm done explaining now. You want to know what the worst part of this is going to be? I'm certain that someone on a friendly web forum or even in a call-in or letter/email sent to to the radio program itself is going to say something goofy like "Some guy with a rabbit-based name is trying to squelch our freedom of speech," a prediction I base on comments by other people in this discussion. And at this point, I'm done. I'm tired of trying to explain this. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There may be parts of the article that are not verifiable, but it is disingenuous to claim that the entire article is unverifiable. If verifiability is an issue, remove the parts of the article that cannot be verified. If you'd like me to edit the article to post citations for the verifiable claims, I'd be happy to (but I've been avoiding editing the article since its initial post due to the COI issue). Nickcoons (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retain = The show is notable here in the Phoenix Metro radio market among Libertarians; over ten thousand people are registered Libertarian in the county, and most are aware of the program even if they are not regular listeners. In addition, the guests on the show are often of local and regional notability. On these points, the show should meet the notability requirements under Wikipedia. As for verifiability; it is true that one of the show's founders and hosts created the entry. I would be happy to verify that the general information about the show is true and accurate. As for online, linkable sources - I can see from a review of the Category: American Radio programs will reveal that a number of them have the same verifiability problems that TLS does, in your eyes. Those do not seem to be marked for deletion. For example, Radio Home Visitor, which is a show out of Pennsylvania, has absolutely no references at all, including several unverified, unsourced claims. The Neutrality of the person who marked this particular show comes into question for that reason alone. Finally, I understand that the show does have a couple advertisers, and is not a brokered program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.205.225 (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that this article was tagged and not the other one you referenced is because someone saw this article and not that other one. I'll go look at the one you've complained about and if it doesn't match our needs, I'll delete it. I don't edit Wikipedia out of a political bent, although the number of people who think I'm anti-libertarian is making me consider going to clean up the grammar on the Ron Paul article and make it better just to prove 'em wrong. :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I just went to look at that article. So in a nutshell your complaint is that because I didn't mark an article about reading newspapers to the blind for deletion, I'm an evil anti-libertarian who wants to see the libertarian movement wiped from Wikipedia? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I'm done debating with you. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment = There is an "Appeal for advertising" because the show needs advertising. Please source your claim that appeals for advertising are a "hallmarks" of brokered programming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.205.225 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response When you buy an hour of programming on a radio station, unless you're someone who can afford it that money either goes to your cause or producing the show. It doesn't go to the staff and the only thing the station does is collect their money and hope the purchaser doesn't do anything to risk their license. The station doesn't sell the advertising, the purchaser does. That's why it meets the definition of brokered programming. Also I have no issues with the article to speak of, it's the fact that it doesn't establish notability that is my reason for wanting it deleted. I have asked for deletion for other articles on this type based on the same criteria, no matter their political viewpoint. Nate • (chatter) 05:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment = The producers of this show made an appeal on a Ron Paul website attacking proponents of deletion as "socialists" and asking people to come here and vote retain. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=186708 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.26.202.142 (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this to RPF, and I apologize for the rash judgment. I've edited my post on that forum to remove the bias, and have noted such in the post. Nickcoons (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment = I am one of the shows hosts so to address several of the comments made here I will add only to the information. When the show aired it's first episode we had 3 advertisers (non-host advertising). We offer advertising on our show because TLS is a for-profit business. Companies or individuals buy advertising, with us or somewhere else, because it is good for their business. This should not be a surprise. Also note that we had Ron Paul's presidential campaign press secretary on as a guest last year and we are still in contact though I have made no appeal to the Ron Paul Forums. Even so it seems they are free to express themselves in this nation - even if not on this excellent website. The proponents of deletion may all have many motivations among which may be a bias against the show's political content - There is simply no way of knowing (short of asking - if even that would help) so I would not, myself, suggest such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardsutton (talk • contribs) 19:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The arguments of those whowant to "retain" are enough reason. Local radio talk shows are very rarely notable,and there is no evidence this is different. Possible G11 speedy as promotional DGG (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOURCE, WP:NOR, WP:COI and WP:NPOV. —Danorton (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cossom (American R&B Artist and Songwriter)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kevin Cossom (American R&B Artist and Songwriter)

Lack of references to present notability of artist Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 03:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: reasonable number of ghits mostly confined to MySpace, blogs and download sites. An empty allmusic entry and no billboard information. Non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could possibly pass WP:MUSIC some day, but not yet. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin close- article is a re-creation of deleted material, and has been submitted for G4 speedy deletion. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RosenkreuzStilette

AfDs for this article:

See previous discussion. The game is still not notable, is still self-published, and the only sources are a messageboard and the official website. Suggest deletion and salt. roux 03:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, previous AFD.Wacko Jack O 04:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If not speedy as recreated deleted content. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - You're right, it should be a speedy for recreating deleted content.Wacko Jack O 11:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - What's the policy - in this case - on nominating an article for Speedy deletion in the middle of an AFD?Wacko Jack O 11:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suspect the best thing to do is to go ahead and tag the article for speedy deletion, and go ahead and close the AfD. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - - I tagged the article for speedy delete. However, I didn't see where they mentioned how exactly one closes an AFD, when I read through close.Wacko Jack O 12:24, 31 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) 00:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Open Education Institution

The article is nothing more than an internet directory (WP:LINKFARM). Potentially, the article could be re-written to use internal links instead of internet links; but that requires a fundamental re-write that's just as easy (if not easier) to do from scratch. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked over the article before I even saw the nomination and my first thought was "EEEK! A linkfarm!" At the very least the links have to be paved over and independant sources be put in their place. Deleting the linkfarm leaves an OR essay, which is also unacceptable. Barring a fundamental rewrite within the next... oh, five days, this should be deleted. Them From Space 04:07, 31 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial books of poetry

Delete per the usual AFD thing about lists that tag the topic as "controversial". Bearcat (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't see a need for this. Also, what standard is being used used to classify a book of poetry as "controversial?"Wacko Jack O 05:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly POV with no inclusion guidelines given. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective & POV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps someone will eventually be able to think of a rational way to deal with this sort of thing, but this is ridiculous. DGG (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shamrock Shake

The article was merged once, but restored by other contributors who claimed notability without providing any sources. I could find no sources that meet WP: RS or don't violate WP:PSTS. Jeremy (blah blah) 03:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If it was merged once, it needs to be redirected for attribution purposes per WP:MERGE (a merge is always followed up with a redirect). Claims that something or someone is notable without any evidence to back it up can be ignored (when sources are questionable, they should be discussed). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence includes plenty of google news hits and book notes. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - First hit is a blog, next few are the Canadian press release from McDonald's Canada. In the book hits, not a source is about the product, only a passing mention that does not establish notability. Please note that WP Policy explicitly states that the number of hits on Google do not infer notability, it is the quality of the hits that matter and none of the Google hits meet the standards of inclusion. --Jeremy (blah blah) 20:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect to the original merge target on policy grounds (mainly WP:RS and WP:MERGE) with absolutely no prejudice to recreation with (and only with) sources that pass muster. This is one of those "I know it is notable, but I can't prove it" situations. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:42, 3 April 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 10:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be more than adequate media coverage from a Google News search: [29] and [30]. The article needs better referencing, but it doesn't require deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google news returns 127 articles. Not all pass the WP:N test, but articles entirely devoted to the Shamrock Shake include those from The Toronto Star, Chicago Tribune, Bloomberg News. There's also "San Francisco Chronicle - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎", "National Post - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎", "Chicago Sun-Times - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎", and it just goes on. Obvious keep. T L Miles (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Again, did anyone read the hits generated by the searches? There is only one link in the searches you pointed out that actually concerns the shamrock shake. Same point as above: most hits are the press releases from McDonald's that happened to be published on major web sites, blogs with one hit being a blog about the blogs that mention the shamrock shake, and the rest are hits with the words "shamrock" and "shake" in them but aren't about the "shamrock shake". I went at least 5 pages into the searches and not a single hit met WP:RS, WP:PSTS and WP:V. --Jeremy (blah blah) 03:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Yeah, I did read these. Look, if an independent reputable publisher prints a story that is effectively a press release, that doesn't make it any less a valid reference. We're talking about the Shamrock Shake here, not Watergate. You want investigative journalism? What is there to say beyond the press release that you would expect a newspaper to tackle? It's up to consensus on the related articles if this is better merged or not, but it's clearly notable, and not a candidate for deletion. In the US and Canada, I'm willing to guess more people have heard of a Shamrock Shake than can name many of their national or local political leaders. Arguing that this topic, while of zero humanitarian or intellectual value, is not notable just doesn't pass the smell test. If this topic wasn't notable according to WP:N, we would have to change WP:N. T L Miles (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep [31] is an article on the topic. [32] appears to also be one. I looked at a few others, and they seemed weaker, but not unreasonable given the two above. Hobit (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...but only because wiki has many many articles on other trivial consumer food products and so precedent has been set. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added two ProQuest sources, including one that's clearly not Corporate PR. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...make that 5 sources, 3 of which are clearly not corporate PR, and I've appropriately de-tagged the article for sourcing but tagged the statements that still are unsupported--which can clearly be excised as desired while still leaving a useful article. Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a major newspaper publishes a press release, that is an indicator of notability, and if several newspapers publish several press releases about the same topic, that should be clear evidence of notability. But even if you don't accept this argument, thanks to Jclemens' work, independent sources have been found which clearly establish notability. DHowell (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. This is an enduring (and repulsive) product that is popularized in many mainstream culture spoofs. McDonald's is - I believe - the world's best known and most notorious resteraunt so many of their products will eise to a notable level on their own. -- Banjeboi 09:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal

Fails WP:NB. No substantial coverage, and the author's notability is as a radio host much more so than as an author. MSJapan (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of significant coverage exists. The book was reveiewed by reliable sources such as The Kansas City Star (link), Library Journal (link), the Washington City Paper (link), the Phoenix New Times (link), and more; and it's cited and referenced in a couple dozen books and a couple dozen scholarly publications. Also Google News Archive hits seem to suggest that Ian Christe is far more notable as an author than as a radio host. DHowell (talk) 03:20, 3 April 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 10:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per DHowell's pretty extensive argument. Seegoon (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article could certainly do with some edits to include that pertinent information. I'll see if I can squeeze some of it in. Seegoon (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've spruced it up considerably. Maybe this'll be sufficient to salvage it. Seegoon (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequate independent coverage to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BK standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does give notability and independent coverage. Captain Gamma (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing Death: The Improbable History of Death Metal & Grindcore

Totally fails WP:NB (notability for books). The only hits are for the book's website, its publisher's website, a blog, and sites that sell the book. It has won no awards, and has received no other attention that would even make it borderline notable. MSJapan (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article fails to assert notability. Is not a major work on the genre, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst a relatively fringe subject area (it is one of a handful of books written specifically on the subject of extreme metal), the reviews section of Mudrian's website demonstrates that it was certainly reviewed by such notable sources as Terrorizer, Kerrang! and Maximum Rock 'n' Roll. A Google Books search also suggests that it has been cited by a number of books as a source. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails all of my basic searches for notability. This book is located in only two libraries (the minimum is 12 for notability), and a google serach for independent 3rd party reviews turned up nothing of value [33]. Redirect to author's page. Untick (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's in at least 110 libraries, double check your Worldcat search [34]. Also, you prodded the authors page so what's the point suggesting the redirect? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:47, 5 April 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) 00:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - book has won no awards, has trivial coverage. A-Kartoffel (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability for books. --Pstanton (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this Google News Archive search. The book passes the general notability guidelines. Here is a review written by Mike Tribby for the American Library Association. This article (from Publishers Weekly) is another review of the book. The book has also been cited by 4 authors. Cunard (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since Baz and Cunard establish the notability of this book. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Red Hill, Australian Capital Territory#Schools. MBisanz ^talk 10:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St Bedes Primary School Red Hill

Non-notable primary school. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Red Hill, Australian Capital Territory#Schools per precedent. Cunard (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in secondary sources, fails WP:ORG. WWGB (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy There might be sources, but the potential sources need careful evaluation. Without any of those added, the material is not verified, so I opppose a merge. Let's give the creator the chance to clean this up. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Red Hill, Australian Capital Territory#Schools per precedent. In response to Mgm's concerns, actually only the bare facts about the school need be merged and those are easilly sourceable. Most of the internal stuff simply goes. TerriersFan (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red Hill, Australian Capital Territory. Merge instead if anyone is willing to do some sourcing on the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davud Sadinlija

A junior tennis player, does not seem to be notable enough for inclusion. Very little mention in secondary sources; only one relevant hit on Google. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User was responsible for at least one other NN bio which I deleted. I too got only one possibly relevant Google and maybe two others on this one. The notability claim is what kept me from clobbering this and I was going to bring it here myself. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:23, 31 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) 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shadmehr Aghili

no references, fails WP:MUSICBIO Dlabtot (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: seems probable article used Kodoom as source. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: possible copyright violation from Kodoom, but hard to tell which came first. Can find no evidence his releases have charted. No allmusic entry. Non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kaczynski

delete - article does not assert or support notablity; sources used are not adequate by Wikipedia standards. Will in China (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the books (two of them, neither of which appears to be self-published) and articles, he seems to be a legitimately notable expert at least on the subject of Aleister Crowley.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Between the books, extensive articles both metaphysical and medical, career as lecturer, career as musician, how often his written works are quoted and/or referred to, etc, the cumulative effect is IMO one of a notable-enough person to merit an article. Rosencomet (talk) 23:39, 4 April 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 10:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'd like to note that neither of the books actually meets the notability requirement for books. I'd also like to note that almost all the sources are blurbs quite probably written by the subject of the article and published on the website of an organization of which he is a member and which has an interest in promoting the classes which he teaches within the organization. We really have no third-party sources to support either notability (i.e. no mainstream publication has taken note of this individual) or any of the biographical data. Will in China (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Cotant

Player has never played in a fully-pro league and fails WP:ATHLETE. Contested PROD; removed by IP with no rationale given Giant Snowman 02:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 02:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in Cuba

This is an obvious WP:POVFORK of Politics of Cuba. It is also something of a WP:COATRACK, created by a user who has repeatedly attempted to insert WP:BLP-violating content into Fidel Castro. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Politics in Cuba is not suitable article for corruption related studies, because corruption is not limited to politics. Corruption happens at all levels of the government like the book Corruption in Cuba by Sergio Diaz-Briquets and Jorge F. Pérez-López says. See also Corruption in Paraguay, Corruption in China, Corruption in Kenya, Corruption in Angola, Corruption in Ghana, Corruption in Armenia... Luis Napoles (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Preceding comment is from the article's creator and principal editor. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a compelling argument, by the way. These other corruption articles are not even very good (for the life of me, I cannot figure out why an article called "Corruption in Chile" focuses on the year 2005 and makes no mention whatsoever of Augusto Pinochet), and perhaps they should be deleted, as well. But even if they were outstanding, they would provide no justification for the article in question here, for which WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:COAT would remain issues. Cosmic Latte (talk)

Note: This AfD has been off to a slow start, so I've done some friendly noticing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cuba, Talk:Fidel Castro, Talk:Cuba, and Talk:Politics of Cuba. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:POVFORK, WP:COATRACK, WP:BLP. Also feel it unfairly singles out Cuba. "Corruption in country X" articles are questionable in general. --Athenean (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well-put. "Criticism of X" articles are controversial enough, but "Corruption in"? No, thanks. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cosmic Latte, you claimed that the article is a WP:POVFORK or WP:COATRACK, but there is almost nothing about corruption in Politics in Cuba. Were you thinking of merging? Luis Napoles (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, not merging, but perhaps distilling some of the ideas into a summary-style form that can be presented in Politics of Cuba without giving undue weight to little-known authors or to unsubstantiated speculation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:49, 3 April 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 10:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Athenean. There is no way in hell this could be considered to ever be neutral. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cosmic Latte, who do you think we should cite if not the authors of "Corruption in Cuba"? (your "little-known authors") Luis Napoles (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is nothing wrong with citing the authors who are already cited, so long as they are not given WP:UNDUE article space, which would amount to any space in a coatrack povfork BLP. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cosmic Latte, this is not for merging discussions. You can be bold and merge the content into Politics in Cuba if you want. Luis Napoles (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Uh, I know what AfD is for. You are the one who brought up merging, and I responded that I do not support a merge, so quite honestly I have no idea what you are talking about. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The editor Cosmic Latte originally claimed that Politics in Cuba has same content as Corruption in Cuba ("WP:POVFORK, PV:COATRACK"). Anyone can look at the article he claimed to be forked and find out that he filed this AfD based on a false claim. It appears that Cosmic Latte wants to delete the content based on argument that the research about corruption in Cuba is by "little-known authors" and "speculation". We are still waiting for his opinion who would be a well-known author, if not corruption researchers such as Díaz-Briquets, Pérez-López, and others. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not whether we think it's "speculation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis Napoles (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I never said that anything has the same content as anything else; what I said is that this article violates WP:POVFORK (hence WP:NPOV as well), WP:COATRACK, and WP:BLP--the last of which denotes a higher threshold for inclusion than mere verifiability. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Content forking "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject."

Does Politics of Cuba treat the same subject as Corruption in Cuba?

If yes, we should merge the article into Politics in Cuba.
If not, we might wonder why Cosmic Latte claimed so. Luis Napoles (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This fork does treat the same subject, namely Cuban politics. Your earlier observation that "there is almost nothing about corruption in Politics in Cuba", however, is irrelevant. If you feel that Politics of Cuba needs more on allegations of corruption (the operative word here being "allegations", which is missing from the title of your fork), then feel free to add it. But don't do it in "a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines...to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts". And bear in mind that negative information must be added with great care to a BLP. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it does treat the same subject. I merged the article into Politics of Cuba.

Corruption in Cuba should be redirected to Politics in Cuba.Luis Napoles (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see no consensus anywhere to merge anything. "Merge" is a possible outcome of an AfD, but that has not even been suggested by any of this AfD's participants (apart from you) thus far. Merging any article in the middle of its AfD is premature and, well, unusual. But merging an article in the middle of an AfD that has not given even the slightest indication that it should be merged? Hmm... Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least just a moment ago you advocated adding corruption research to Politics in Cuba ("feel free to add it"), while you supposedly seek to delete Corruption in Cuba (i.e. not redirect).Luis Napoles (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That was not meant as a retraction of my previous opposition to any merge, but rather as a reiteration of that opposition, which allowed for the possibility that a summary-style distillation of the research can be added to Politics of Cuba without causing glaring BLP or NPOV issues. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. While the current article may be a mess, the topic of "Corruption in Cuba" is probably a notable one. For example, [35]. In fact an article on "Corruption in X", where X is any number of countries would probably be warranted. These would not be attack pages, they would simply describe the corruption in that area. See [36], [37], [38]. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While current article is something of an attack page and omits any sort of context (corruption in Cuba didn't start with the Castro family, and won't end with them either) the threshold for inclusion is notabily rather than neutrality. If it is not neutral it needs to be tagged (and should be), but not deleted. Corruption in Cuba is notable, but it should not nessecarily be singled out, I'd imagine you could make a fairly baulky article on Corruption in the United States or Corruption in Spain. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i'm confused is this a book article? (Briquits and Lopez), or if several sources, needs a major rewrite, esp. nomenklatura section, for more integration of sources pohick (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The opening causes problems, since is the article about the book or the subject? The subject is perfectly valid for an encyclopedia, and I see references backing up some of the claims. Dream Focus 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Politics of Cuba because it is a WP:POVFORK.--Caspian blue 05:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't merge, it's an article about a book, not about the topic of the book. Rename it to Corruption in Cuba (book) if possible. If it's a non-notable book, nominate it for deletion on those grounds. Nerfari (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up the article to correct the serious bias and essay issues. The confusion about whether this article covers the book by that name or the larger topic can be resolved by writing a proper lead. The topic is notable, whether or not the book by that title is: Other sources are not hard to come by. If the existence of this article "unfairly singles out Cuba," as another editor suggests, than the solution is to better cover the issue of corruption in other countries, so as to counter systemic bias; not to censor Wikipedia in the name of "fairness." --Shunpiker (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Bride (visual novel)

Delete no indication that this eroge is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for those wishing to have a look for WP:N/WP:V sources, the kana appears to be プリンセスブライド. Marasmusine (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, [39] gives better search results. Marasmusine (talk) 14:25, 4 April 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) 00:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability.... Just a production from a minor japanese porn producer. --Pstanton (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting Requirements FLVS

Unencyclopedic content; not suitable for Wikipedia. CJ Miller. (^{That's my name.}_{Don't wear it out.}) 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please be more specific, see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 02:48, 31 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) 00:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete as unencyclopedic. --Pstanton (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no reason given for deletion. Insufficient to simply assert that an article (or the subject of an article) is not appropriate for Wikipedia (WP:UNENCYC). Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Topic is probably encyclopedic and notable, but the article as it stands needs a lot of work. Might even be better to stubify. OTOH, needing a lot of work is not a reason to delete. LK (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Block

Delete fails WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep lots of credits at IMDb even if mostly minor. Lots of in-links and a WP search on "Larry Block" shows many more articles that could link here. JJL (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep minor actor, but participated in a fair number of television series over the years and there appear to be an adequate number of sources (per some simple searches) that a good BIO article could be created. JRP (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:42, 31 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 10:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per JJL. T-95 (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Chew, Jr.

Delete sourced only to imdb, not a reliable source, this biography does not show the significant coverage in 3rd party sources to meet our inclusion guidelines. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The relevant standard here is whether he Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions., per WP:BIO. I find that his work in the Bionic Woman (eight episodes as a recurring character) and his work in the Kennedy TV-movie satisfies this criteria. JRP (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really notable, has no 3rd party references. --Pstanton (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Chesner

Delete insufficient coverage by reliable 3rd party sources to meet WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete handful of minor roles only. JJL (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the Veronica Mars appearances would be considered notable, but that's pretty much it and our guidelines require that he needs to have multiple notable contributions. Recreate the article later if he lands a prominent role elsewhere (which is likely). JRP (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of sex positions. MBisanz ^talk 05:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Widely opened position

Non-notable sexual neologism. KuroiShiroi (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough for an article of its own. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 06:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of sex positions as plausible search term. -Atmoz (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 31 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 00:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. JJL (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a neologism, as the subject is described in the Kama Sutra (see, e.g. this copy of the Richard Francis Burton translation). JulesH (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I find it quite amusing that a phrase used in an extraordinarily famous book, first published in the translation that uses the phrase in 1883, is described here as a "neologism". Is this some kind of record? JulesH (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also question whether any of the commenters above who described the term as a neologism bothered to search for sources before commenting? Multiple copies of the Kama Sutra text turn up on the front page of a google search for the exact term in question. JulesH (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - Google doesn't show it turning up for anything other than Burton's version of the Kama Sutra, which seems to indicate that it isn't a widely used translation. It's really just a single line in the linked text- certainly not enough to support an article. Redirect to List of sex positions per Atmoz. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? it shows just the opposite - that Burton's translation is the most widely used Kama Sutra translation in English. The phrase turns up in many other books (like as not traceable to Burton but often not credited). I agree, though, that it is difficult to see how this could ever be expanded much on Wikipedia. There are sites out there that have a page length article on the position, but these mostly amount to "how to" descriptions which is not really suitable material for Wikipedia. But if someone were to present an outline of how this article could be expanded eventually then I would be willing to !vote keep. SpinningSpark 23:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry- I mean that translating whatever the underlying phrase is as 'Widely open position' seems to not be popular with post-Burton translators, not that Burton's translation is unpopular. That indicates to me that 'widely open position' may be an idiosyncratic translation, and so wouldn't be the best choice for a title if the article were capable of being expanded. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet Cesario

Delete voice actress who has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --KrebMarkt 17:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage and most of the roles appear to be minor, however I am not an expert in anime. If an anime expert responds here and demonstrates that her voice acting work is well-known or part of multiple notable productions (where the English-language version must have independent notability), I can be convinced to change my vote. JRP (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the roles are listed in the links not the article, she has had multiple notable roles. Edward321 (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage, not notable, no good 3rd party references. --Pstanton (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Unnotable voice actress who has done primarily minor roles and has received no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. One interview doesn't equal significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's done a couple of major roles, so it's worth keeping her page, but working to improve it. Article passes notability criteria for entertainers.kuwabaratheman (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER. For each of the three series mentioned in the article (You're Under Arrest, Oh! My Goddess, and Clamp School Detectives), she is one of the two or three main protagonists. The Anime News Network link also lists her as the title character in Princess Rouge and Elf Princess Rane, as well as a couple other significant roles. Calathan (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the dubbing of You're Under Arrest is discussed here [40] (with followup here [41]). Calathan (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mrs. Cesario has voiced in the lead roles in several OVA series and television series. So the subject passes the criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER. The article does need to be cleaned up to fall in line with WP:BLP. I have added her filmography to the article so that other editors can more properly judge. --Farix (Talk) 20:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has parts in that many notable animes, so is notable. Dream Focus 20:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Completely passes WP:ENTERTAINER by having voiced multiple lead roles. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough evidences that she made it into the short list of potential voice actress for major role. --KrebMarkt 20:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Maddox

Delete- not notable, no quality in depth references--Justhangin (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - meets several of the notability guidelines: many releases, several international tours, one of the most prominent U.S. exponents of beatboxing, coverage in major media including The New York Times, etc. Badagnani (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then where are the references other than his websites. The NYT article barely mentions him and doesn't say anything about him in particular. My dad was in the NYT once, and he even had a quote. He doesn't have a wikipedia page though.--Justhangin (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Given the poor state of the article, it's hard to find any references in it that support Badagnani's claims. Please simply list the specific sections of WP:MUSIC that have been met, by number at least, and the references for each. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to familiarize oneself with the music notability guidelines before actually preparing a deletion report. This article is not a candidate for such. The artist has many CD releases, several international tours, he is one of the most prominent and active U.S. exponents of beatboxing, coverage in major media including The New York Times, etc. Badagnani (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than telling other editors what to do, in violation of WP:BATTLE, please WP:PROVEIT. I'm happy to help. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For all intents and purposes, your opinion is not any more important than any other one, Badagnani. Rather than accusing editors of wrongdoings in their interpretations of policies and guidelines, you should focus on the content regardless of who created/edited it. Eugene2x►^talk 04:55, 1 April 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 10:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, no reviews or awards or coverage from reputable sources. NY Times article given as proof of notability mentions subject twice in an article about someone else. The amount of CD releases and tours does not matter, it's how notable those CDs and tours etc are that get the coverage that makes the subject notable. If anyone would like to provide some good quality references that attest to the subjects notability then the whole of Wikipedia will very gladly keep it in. If not, there can be no argument with a delete Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ivan Gašparovič. MBisanz ^talk 10:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googlovic

Appears to be a neologism, no evidence of significance of the term; may also be thought of as a pov fork of the Ivan Gašparovič article. Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NPOV. TeaDrinker (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ivan Gašparovič. I did this, but it was undone. It is possibly a viable search term, but on its own, it should be removed. KuroiShiroi (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. It's a likely search term, but it doesn't warrant an article of its own. It should be included in the article on Gašparovič. —C.Fred (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Its possible to redirect it with Ivan Gašparovič. South Bay (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had considered redirecting as well, but I didn't think the term was notable enough for mention in the Gašparovič article (although I know little of Slovak politics) and it seemed unprofessional to use an insulting term as an (uncommented) redirect; a bit like redirecting TOTUS to Obama in my opinion. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it should be redirected to the presidents name because it is not notable enough. However, if someone comes around the term Googlovic he or she should be able to find in an encyclopedia like this what it means (and that it refers to the Slovak incumbent president). In the internet forums on politics we often speak of Googlovic did this or that, so in my opinion people should be able to find the term in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueray1978 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Just do a google search on Googlovic and it comes up with several entries Ivan Googlvic, or Googlovic. So if someone reads it and looks in wikipedia for Googlovic, he should be able to find what it means. Redirecting Totus to Obama is same like Googlovic to Gasparovic. I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueray1978 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you still wanna delete, or is the outcome that the article should stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.88.114 (talk) 21:57, 28 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 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his real name. A mention of his nickname in the main article is sufficient, provided that it has reliable sources. Them From Space 01:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should stay. I do not see why not. I vote against redirecting for a simple reason: it would be the same like redirecting Totus to Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.245.195.116 (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Bole

no referencees, fails WP:MUSICBIO Dlabtot (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - non notable, too many red links are suspicous. Deletion Mutation 15:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Allmusic only turning up a single album released; judging by the catalog number, I'll guess this isn't on a major label. Gnews search only gets 14 hits, several of which aren't about this Andy Bole, and none of which seem to be more than passing mentions. Gsearch not coming up with notabilty, either.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 08:35, 29 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, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - found evidence at Allmusic.com that he has released an album [42], and further evidence of notability with a review [43]. Untick (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO is clear: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). (emphasis added) Also, what you call a review is not anything published in a reliable source, but is actually a website that's selling the album. Dlabtot (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rainforest Stakeholders

Article in its current form is simply a definition (violation of WP:NOTDICT). It does not seem to me like this article could be expanded to anything beyond the definition of who someone interested in protecting the rainforest could be. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 06:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Tropical rainforest#Human uses. . . Rcawsey (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Rcawsey points out, we already have anything that might appear here covered already. The word "stakeholder" is not only aesthetically but morally offensive, being part of that class of jargon that's vague to the point of evasiveness. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Dictionary definition unlikely to be expanded. However, the title is a plausible search term, so redirect to Tropical rainforest#Human uses. -Atmoz (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability of the term comes up that could be discussed as its own article. It appears to be a neologism. A google search shows two results; one of them being, of course, this article. 01:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with the above. This is a neologism that only a handful of random people on the internet have actually used. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OnBoard PowerSeller 2

Contested prod. Would appear to be little more than a set of technical specs, and a link to the companies' web page. Partial advert, and dubious notability (though there is a possible claim based on the number of transactions - though this is not from an independent source). No independent coverage. CultureDrone (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-consumer tech product: a device produced and marketed to the passenger transit industry to perform onboard retail transactions. In other words, a hand held, radio controlled credit card swiping gadget meant for use on vehicles. Such a product is highly unlikely to generate third party notice in general interest publications. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find nothing to indicate notability for this product/device. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanispam that fails WP:N. Them From Space 01:45, 31 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 Show-Me Institute with no prejudice against reverting if notability independent of Show-Me Institute can be established (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Hannasch

non-notable vice president of the Show-Me Institute, a local organization, whose Wikipedia article, is also currently the subject of an AfD discussion. TommyBoy (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just an average guy at the head of a local community organisation. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this should await the outcome of the Show-Me Institute AfD. I'd like to suggest merge and redirect to the Show-Me Institute if that article survives, and if not this should simply be deleted.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any news articles mentioning this person. All of the links seem to go to the Show-Me Institute, which is just his employer. I don't think this should be merged either. According to this article he is just a vice president, and there is nothing to show that he is notable enough to be included in that article. Locke9k (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization has just been found notable by a SNOW close. DGG (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because his employer was found notable doesn't mean that he is. Or am I missing your point? Locke9k (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

of course not,but its enough to prevent too rapid a close in the other direction till we can check further. :). I remind you that argument for deletion seemed to emphasise the unimportance of the organization. Your're trying to have it both ways. DGG (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not sure what you mean. In fact the organization was not found notable through a SNOW close - the nomination was withdrawn. Not the same thing at all. The point is that an employee of a notable organization is not necessarily notable themselves. I haven't been able to find any significant independent coverage of this individual to show otherwise. Locke9k (talk) 03:31, 31 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 00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Show-Me Institute. The institute may be notable, but this guy is better shown in relation to his company. It cuts down on the BLP problems that come with his borderline notability. Them From Space 01:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 08:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeSoL

It may well be true that this band is well-known in some circles, but there is no evidence of notability in the article - which has been created and added to by a suspiciously large number of one-off users Deb (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there seem to be a few news hits for them [44]. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Claim of billboard charting does not show up for me at billboard. What are Triple A charts? Two of their album articles claim allmusic professional reviews that do not exist. Allmusic [45] and short review [46] Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard AC Chart Listing and a blurb on Billboard commenting on it being the highest debut in AC history.

Does the Adult Contemporary Billboard chart count as a national music chart?

Here's two more articles from Billboard that discuss the band itself a bit more...although they seem like they might overlap a bit.

Washington Post article & New York Times article. --Onorem ♠Dil 11:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just checked the interwiki links and they are fake. Deb (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 08:01, 30 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 00:02, 31 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, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Onorem. Coverage by Washington Post and New York Times makes them notable. Ancemy (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they have a charted single on a major chart, coupled with significant source coverage. Hot AC is indeed a notable chart. Not sure where the AAA charts came from, but sure as heck not Billboard. Oh yeah, and having the highest AC debut in the history of that chart, isn't that a good assertation? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:54, 31 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 05:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth McLaughlin II

Can't find any independent reliable sources Nerfari (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an actor with one film credit and one TV show appearance. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. -Atmoz (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GHits aren't everything, but out of the 22 for this subject (some of which are unrelated) not one is a reliable source required to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:36, 28 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, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indicator this is notable. Ancemy (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Clique (film). It might not be independent, but there is no reason to doubt the official film website regarding her involvement in the project. She's a reasonable search term for people who look her up based on the film. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When she's ready, she'll get a page Vartanza (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of characters in the Hitman series. Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Purayah II

Not notable. Could be redirected to List of characters in the Hitman series. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

— Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per nominator. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - no justification for a seperate article at this time. Pedro : Chat 13:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat wary of these recent nominations, we're dealing with a new user here, who wants to do things right, but doesn't seem to understand or know of relevant practices here. Have any of the nominators in the recent discussions attempted to explain and guide the user in question here? I'm becoming concerned that these AfDs may inadvertantly lead to us driving him away. -- Sabre (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted the editor a couple of times to offer guidance. He/she isn't particularly talkative. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 14:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These three articles appear to me to be the result of an inexpert user of English attempting to create video game character pages. I don't play any video games, but I know there are other video game character pages for more notable characters. What's the line in the sand where one article deserves expansion and another deletion? Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The availability of reliable sources. Someone like Lara Croft, for instance, has been talked about all up and down reliable sources like GameSpot, GameSpy, IGN, etc. in various articles and features. These Hitman characters are minor and have received little or no coverage. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 15:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another related AfD: there's another of this user's articles up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitman Clones. Whatever is decided here would likely apply there as well. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 28 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, 31 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 10:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuziyah al-Ouni

AfDs for this article:

Contested Prod (don't know why). There is no assertion of notability here. She's named as a human rights activist (so am I) who was "involved" in an abuse case (how involved). A source has been provided which "mentions her", but all it does it relate a bland quote from her about this one case. Google News gives nothing - and Google itself not much more than this one case and "activist". Sorry, probably a righteous woman, but unless we can say something significant about her, and verify it, we need to delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Google gives are attributions of the same quote [47] to the Saudi Gazette: "By sentencing her to 90 lashes they are sending a message that she is guilty. No rape victim is guilty." Good quote, but not nearly enough to justify an article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article did survive the first attempt at deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuziyah al-Ouni. Have things changed much since then? PatGallacher (talk)

No sources were provided then either, and only three people opined. I hope we can do better this time. Can you find anything else on this woman that would make her merit an article? Why do you think she does? I can't see the case for keeping this at all? What is it?--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to establish notability. Hekerui (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- KuroiShiroi (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost A7; one article mentions here. She was "involved" in something which although tragic apparently isn't very notable. "Involved" is a big weasel word - if some guy holds the door open for Marcia Clark during the OJ trial is he now "involved" in that trial (a notable event unlike the minor case in which this subject was "involved") and get a WP bio? Does chivalry=notability? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contrary to the nominator, there are 4 sources via google news if you remove the time restriction. Notability is not temporary. I added those sources and more as external links, which could be made into references. Jwray (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial: the first source mentions the subject near then end and all it can muster is: "Fuziyah al-Ouni, described as an activist by the paper, said she was outraged by the case. “By sentencing her to 90 lashes they are sending a message that she is guilty. No rape victim is guilty,” she said."; the second mention is vebatim the first; the third source doesn't even mention the subject; the fourth source doesn't mention the subject either; the fifth source repeats the first's one-liner verbatim. There is one source with one line about the subject here. Do not be fooled on April Fools Day. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tough to get news about women activists in a part of the world where they have so few rights. Might not even be surprised if Fuziyah al-Ouni herself received a few lashes for speaking up. Are their any Arabic wikipedians who could do a better search? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jon Heder. MBisanz ^talk 10:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Heder

Relationships do not confer notability. No indication that the rest of his bio would qualify him for inclusion (WP:CREATIVE) without that relationship. Rd232 ^talk 13:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into Jon Heder. Jd027 (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 00:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think he has enough notability outside of Jon to stay. Just barely, but enough. --Grev (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:53, 28 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, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so he has a notable brother, went to acting classes with a notable actress, and is distantly related to a notable sportscaster; but what has he done? a few bit parts, only one of which in a notable show, and he's been on Letterman. Woo-hoo, so far fails WP:GNG that if this is the measure of notability - most actors in tv commercials, local plays that get reviewed in the local rags, and game-show losers qualify. That isn't the case. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 31 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 to delete, so kept through a merge and redirect to Takaful per debate below. Hiding T 09:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The World Takaful Conference

Declining db-spam and taking to AfD, I'd like comment from people from the region if possible. Google hits suggest this is probably nonnotable by our standards, but it's possible people from the region will have a different view. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to takaful. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be enough coverage found by Google News and Google Books to show notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:31, 30 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 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Derek Brook

Article has no sources and I couldn't find any to add. His book (his main claim to fame) is from a vanity press. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable self promotion. Teapotgeorge^Talk 08:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 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, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable with no sources. Ancemy (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only possible thing he's done that could make him notable was writing a book, but this was as mentioned from a vanity press and apparently garnered no reviews. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:07, 31 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) 02:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backup Direct

Advertising a business Be-technical (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:COMPANY. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is most likely notable. See the list of awards on Backup Direct's website; we would just need to verify these in reliable, independent sources. There also seem to be some news mentions that probably aren't press releases. [48]. Overall, this meets WP:WEB, if not WP:N. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LinguistAtLarge Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Linguist. The article is a stub, so it's just missing references. It seems they do exist. Ancemy (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The lack of independent sourcing in a subject like this is a serious issue, and none have been found in spite of attempts during the course of the debate. The secondary sourcing alluded to by Gigs has not materialized. Hence, the delete opinions get the nod on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevan Shaw

Poorly sourced article about a lighting design consultant. Some passing references turn up in Google news searches, but no significant coverage. Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be notable enough to have a good scattering of secondary source coverage. Should be trimmed down to WP:NPF standards though. Gigs (talk) 00:07, 27 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, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since I posted this article, I clearly think it is valid. I have cut it right sown to its core as suggested by Gigs.Fiunary (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much of the article is unsourced, and I can't find independent sources other than those that establish his existence. Sancho 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I went through the first few pages of google hits for "Kevan Shaw" and couldn't find anything that would qualify as significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:BIO Secret ^account 14:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretalt (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Clatworthy

Prod contested with no reason given by an IP editor.

also nominating News 140

Two articles on a sixteen schoolboy and the internet news channel he has set up. Unfortunately, and despite claims in the articles, there is a distinct absence of coverage in the news or any other reliable source of either subject. Hence, failing WP:BIO and WP:ORG (or any others available) Nuttah (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The age of the kid is not relevant to the debate. Lacking sources is deleteable for articles about people of any age. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author of both articles felt it is relevant to include references to the age and educational status of the subject, so I included this in my summary of them. At no point was this information given as a deletion criteria, so I'm not sure how you arrived at that incorrect assumption. Nuttah (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I arrived at that conclusion because you mentioned it. Age is frequently used as a reason to "prove" someone hasn't yet lived long enough to establish anything. Your clarification is appreciated. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the references are written by the subject, not about the subject. I failed to find any other sources about him. He has not received significant attention worthy of being recorded. Fails WP:BIO. Delete News 140] also. Lack of reliable, third-party sources. Fails WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Atmoz's reasoning - the article does a good job of making his achievements sound impressive, but it's all very minor and obscure appearances, with no coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 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, 31 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 05:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deja Chan

No evidence whatsoever that subject meets Wikipedia:BIO#Pornographic_actors notability criteria (no awards, etc.) Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dismas|^(talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, does not meet PORNBIO - in addition (although not fully a deletion reson in this context) some WP:BLP issues with assertions not matched to the referneces; one of which I have removed. Pedro : Chat 21:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 21:09, 29 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, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources indicate lack of notability. Ancemy (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is featured by Hustler, which is a sufficient criteria according to WP:PORNBIO. We also need time to contact her agency or herself - she probably does not know about this article and has not had any say. Longhairadmirer (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Contact her agency or herself? Why? I could go into a lengthy explanation of my point but I'll just link to WP:AUTO and take any questions if you have any after reading that. Dismas|^(talk) 09:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO. Previous AfD discussions have discounted the notability of Hustler Honeys.[49][50] Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:21, 31 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 05:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Felix's machines

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Felix's machines

Non-notable art. KuroiShiroi (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, unless third-party evidence of notability is produced.

Keep "Felix’s Machines have performed at Faster than Sound as part of the Aldeburgh Music festival (2008)" from http://www.gasworks.org.uk/exhibitions/detail.php?id=403 would seem to me to establish a certain notability. The Aldeburgh Festival is quite a notable occasion to perform at. And the Aldeburgh experience has been recreated at Kings Place, one of London's newest musical venues and very highly regarded in musical circles. http://www.kingsplace.co.uk/music/weekly-themes/faster-than-sound Peridon (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless it comes up with some proper references - quick Google search comes up with nothing that fits the bill though Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.summitreports.com/pdfs/oman.pdf

[2] ttp://agoracom.com/ir/omagine/forums/discussion/topics/310783-oman-in-the-new-york-times/messages/1063244

[3] ttp://www.taimur.com.my/news.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Henderson (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapidshare downloader}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Cross Sale}}