Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:32, 1 April 2009

< 31 March	2 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IrishJack

This article has been tagged for cleanup for more than a year, but in that time, no verifiable references have been provided to indicate that the breed is notable. I recommend a delete rather than a merge to Jack Russell Terrier unless some reliable source can be located to establish that this is a recognized variety, and not just marketing on behalf of one or several kennels. Shunpiker (talk) 16:32, 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 00:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 01:00, 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 00:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original nomination was complete. -- Shunpiker (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no references and there is some evidence (Talk:IrishJack) that the whole (WP:OR?) thing has got a bit confused. Plus an edit summary suggesting it's a trademark. Without sources (and the key contributors don't seem to be active on WP anymore), this can't be sorted. Rd232 ^talk 18:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; that was my edit summary expressing concern about it being a one-kennel breed. I never did/still don't have time to try to sort this out. Elf | Talk 23:50, 17 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 00:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weaver Team F.C.

Author-contested prod, concern was: "Amateur, intramural college team. Conflict of interest as well, based on author's userpage." (author is Spartan008 (talk · contribs)) Additionally, nothing shows up on Google. ~EdGl ★ 16:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plays at the University of Florida intramural league. Julius Sahara (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a former intramural football coach, I can say intramural teams are definitely not notable. --Angelo (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable team. Giant Snowman 12:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as completely non-notable. – Pee Jay 18:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - really really non-notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notabale team -- Sharadjalota456 (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rather obvious that this is not a notable team. A 'ground' capacity of 50 people?? Not notable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Intramural teams are not notable. fuzzy510 (talk) 16:52, 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. per NALBUMS; as was pointed out below, exclusivity actually makes them less notable. There may be a rationale for including them as a one-line mention in the artist's own articles, but that's it. Black Kite 15:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Originals

Non-notable iTunes exclusive releases. No non-trivial coverage for any of these albums, which are only digital "albums" anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the articles except for ITunes Originals. I don't see any point in separate articles for the ITunes offerings on separate artists, but I'd keep the headline article. Mandsford (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What point do you see in the headline article? There're no sources for the series as a whole. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; iTunes Originals is a series of albums by many famous artists; it is an original concept in that it is exclusive to itunes, and it compiles album tracks with live performance and interview in a sort of anthology. It is notable as one of the first, if not the first, series of items created exclusively for itunes music stores: a very notable retailer. One of their most notable series of exclusive releases is notable. "itunes originals" gives me 175,000 yahoo hits; I'm sure there's some viable sources in that group; just because an article is not sourced does not mean it's not notable. It just means it needs improvement since sources may be available. Simliarly, I don't see the argument re: individual articles whereas any other album by those artists aren't given a second look in terms of notability, this is, in my view, another album by those artists; even though it's not a physical release. It is entirely possible that like any album, specific artists' itunes originals may not be notable for them, and that should be looked at in an article by article basis, not en-masse. TheHYPO (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to iTunes originals since the individual songs haven't been discussed in third-party sources, which is required by WP:N. Them From Space 19:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. A passing mention on each of the artists parent article is all that is required, if that. No notability for a stand alone article on each and every one of these releases. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. All artists notable. Under notability guideline these shouldn't be deleted, if not notable enough content should be merged to individual discographies. Since virtually all other albums by artists have individual pages, merging content would malform discographies. Odds are sources can be found for each of these anyway, and notability guidelines indicate albums by notable artists are generally notable. Procedural speedy close for individual pages since nominator didn't put AFD notices on their pages. Appears to be sufficient coverage of general iTunes project. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keeping them is not an option--these collections themselves are entirely unnotable, even if the artists are notable. Delete the lot, and continue the list in the main article, which I think is notable enough. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: trivial coverage for non-notable releases. JamesBurns (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/weak keep the way I read NALBUM, as these are officially released (digitally, but still officially released), they are notable. However, I think a merge would be more appropriate as a matter of consolidation of data. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - entirely unnotable releases, no significant coverage. A-Kartoffel (talk) 05:24, 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, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and renominate individually so that they can be appropriately judged on an article by article basis. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all, since these Internet-only releases fails WP:NALBUMS. A series of non-notable digital releases, which anyone have references or third-part reliable sources to comprove their notability; yeah, because existence don't prove notability. Canniba loki 07:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per TheHYPO and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. TenPoundHammer, "There're no sources" does not translate to non-notable, it just means they haven't been well-sourced YET. I believe many of these albums can be well-sourced - rst20xx (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (including the parent article). That they aren't physical releases is irrelevant. The series fails WP:NALBUMS for a number of reasons including the fact that there's nothing special about any of them. Exclusivity to one seller actually reduces the likelihood of the album being notable (an exception being if, for some reason, the release garnered substantial media coverage). The individual albums fail notability as does the series as a whole. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Rst20xx, if they cannot be well sourced now, then the article should be deleted in accordance with Policy until they can be well sourced. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to say that I believe they can be well-sourced now, it's just that no-one's bothered to do it yet - rst20xx (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, exclusivity to one vendor means none of these albums can actually be considered as officially charting (see WP:BADALBUMS). No charts, no awards, scant 3rd party sources = non notable. TheClashFan (talk) 11:02, 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 03:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live from London (iTunes)

Non-notable iTunes exclusive. No reliable sources found, fails notability for albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. A passing mention on each of the artists parent article is all that is required, if that. No notability for a stand alone article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage for a non-notable release. JamesBurns (talk) 04:57, 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 00:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, another series of non-notable releases. Canniba loki 01:44, 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 speedy delete. G4 - Recreation of material deleted via discussion. Additionally, notability not demonstrated — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Concepcion

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Unsourced bio for an actress of dubious notability. Her film career is three roles over ten years (two of which when she was five or younger) and on TV it looks like mainly bit parts. Her "big break" - or so the article says - will come in 2010 when a soap opera she is filming debuts, but for now there's no notability. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 16:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this might qualify as a G4 speedy - and it's been deleted twelve times previously. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 16:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G4 and salt, already been speedied shinty-six times and clearly fails notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No notability; WP:CRYSTAL. Given the article history, WP:SALT per Hammer. I42 (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above concerns with notability. Them From Space 19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and salt. In fact the impressive deletion log shows that it was salted by RHaworth last September - how did it manage to get created again? JohnCD (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I see how it got recreated despite being salted: it was created, this time, as "Andrea Concepcion.", with a period at the end, and then C.Fred moved it to the correct title - as he is an admin, that over-rode the salting. JohnCD (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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 NO-LOL. JBsupreme (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Mayer

My bologna has a first name, it's O-S-C-A-R. My bologna has a second name, it's M-A-Y-E-R. Oh I love to eat it everyday, and if you ask me why I'll say, cause' Oscar Mayer has a way with B-O-L-O-G-N-A!!!! Redfarmer (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deli-eat per nomnomnom. -Sketchmoose (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) as a cheap spam knockoff. MuZemike being orange^{Or is Orangemike being MuZe?} 16:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Salt and pepper and serve on Wonder Bread. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this excellent source [1]--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this source? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Ignore the above comment. 'Cause if I were an Oscar Mayer wiener, everyone would be in love with me. Redfarmer (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An obscure brand of hot dogs and bologna that nobody has ever heard of, if it even exists at all. Possible hoax. this particular google search [2] returns only two hits. Mandsford (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Neutral I think the question we need to ask is whether or not Mr. Mayer is notable enough to deserve a lunch meat. If not, we should AfD the bologna first, before worrying about this article about it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC) This user is doing some April Fool's work of his own.[reply]
Keep. Everyone who votes otherwise, beware, Endora may send you to Timbuktu. Mike H. Fierce! 19:35, 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe's Stone Crab

No claim to notability, no third-party references to establish notability; just an advertisement for a local restaurant. Fails WP:CORP. Mikeblas (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very well-known restaurant, even among non-Miamians like myself. Google search turns up tens of thousands of hits, including third-party sources referring to it as a "Miami institution" and the like. Better references needed, to be sure. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the current article may be referenced poorly, but the restauarant appears to be notable. It's notable enough for Publix to sell their soup, is used as an example in a Restaurant startup guide, has expanded outside of their single location, and is the first restaurant in South Beach. -- Whpq (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably the most famous restaurant in Miami, books were written about the subject. Secret ^account 14:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This restaurant was included in one scene in the movie Big Trouble. It is well known and notability would not be hard to find. However, references should be added other then their official site --KingAlex (talk) 13:24, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live from SoHo

Non-notable batch of EPs exclusive to iTunes. Fails the notability guidelines for albums as there're no independent sources about these digital EPs. Also hopelessly out of date and nobody gives a [insert bad word of your choice] about updating it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTE and, without having checked, I imagine every volume in the series fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. A passing mention on each of the artists parent article is all that is required, if that. No notability for a stand alone article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm the article's creator and I agree that this minor series of EPs shouldn't have its own article. I guess it just doesn't seem encyclopedic. --Muéro^(talk/c) 03:33, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where Are They Buried? How Did They Die?

Non-notable book; no claim to notability; no third-party references at all; no third-party references to establish notability. Just an advertising page to promote the title, apparently. Mikeblas (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:21, 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 00:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 01:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I need more of an explanation why this book fails the notability guidelines to weigh in here. If only some books are notable, what makes them so? Where are the guidelines that I can use to evaluated this book against? Failing any detailed explanation, my instinct would be to keep the article, but demand a thorough re-write. -- llywrch (talk) 17:46, 10 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 00:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable is a poor word for the problem here. The basic thing is that we write articles to be neutral and factual, which means we summarize sources (the alternative is just adding our own opinions). Third party sources are needed, otherwise we are just repeating what the book itself says, in which case we're not really writing an encyclopedia article so much as a book summary. In the case of this book, there seem to be no third party sources. None are cited in the article, none come on a search of Google Books or Lexis-Nexis. No third party sources, no article. If you need a policy, see WP:V which says, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It's rather sad that an admin would want to keep the article despite the lack of any third party sources, by the way... --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable, reads like an advert. Giant Snowman 21:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:17, 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 keep. Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Carr (writer)

Can't find any reliable secondary sources that mention this writer. Fails to meet any of the general notability guidelines. The page does read more like a personal bio. Bluecup182 (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me there are a list of reliable secondary sources in the footnotes including the Guardian newspaper, the Bookseller (the major publishing trade magazine in the UK) and the BBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.245.122 (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking though the sources; the BBC link doesn't lead to any mention of Paul Carr and a search on the BBC website for both "Paul Carr" and "The Secret Election", for which this link should be linking to, brings up nothing.

The Bookseller website requires a subscription to view so I am unable to check its contents.

There are a couple of links to articles on the Guardian website that mention Paul Carr but they are about projects he has been involved in and not about Paul Carr himself.

The other links leads to either articles written by Paul Carr, information hosted on Paul Carr's website, what look like press releases and one review of his book.

~~*Delete~~ There seems to be no sources that shows that Paul Carr is notable as outlined in WP:CREATIVE Bluecup182 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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 00:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Creator of a body of work that has been subject of multiple independent reviews, many of which are cited in the article. Plus, I think anybody whose autobiography has been published by a mainstream publisher should generally be considered notable. JulesH (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have struck out above a "delete" comment and bullet point that were added in the middle of an existing comment from the original nominator by an anon user. I'm not sure what the intended effect was, but changing another user's contribution is not generally accepted in AFDs. I have also indented the nominator's comment for added clarity. JulesH (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least 2 reliable sources including The Guardian. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim_Shapiro

I nominate this article for deletion as it seems to be a very clear case of WP:BLP1E. ephix (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC) ephix (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For starters, Ephraim Shapiro is not a living person. He has been deceased for 20 years. The nom's only policy cited as a rationale for deletion is WP:BLP1E, a subsection of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which is a policy written for dealing with living people. Also, articles about this case went on for months, probably over a year. They involved not just he subject, but also his son and other suspects. Xyz7890 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi, there is no WP guidline dealing specifically with biographies of deceased person, see here, its content is still relevant and we have to discuss it here. Perhaps I should have cited WP:N, or to be specific this section. that the subject of this article is notable only for one event is the most troubling factor, that the even was prolonged over a year and featured in the media for that duration isn't significant enough. thanks. ephix (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though it was negative publicity that initially drew the subject into the media, that does not automatically constitute a neutrality issue. If we had a policy that media mention over negative exposure does not qualify a person for an article, then thousands of articles should be deleted. But that is not the case.

What's more, the main source, the Baltimore Jewish Times, was careful not to make the coverage of the subject an all-out vilification, and to describe Rabbi Shapiro's honorable life as well. The publication implied that this exposé was with regret and not without controversy.

To avert the concerns about the single source, I did add references from a few more sources to the article.Xyz7890 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article gives undue weight to the negative aspects of the subject and is primarily sourced by a single publication which is cause to question its neutrality. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even if neutrality were to be an issue with this article, the proper action would be to apply to {{npov}} tag and address the issues, not to delete it. Besides, the article, and its main source (the Baltimore Jewish Times), does not only describe the subject as a child molester. It also tells his life story as an honorable rabbi. Xyz7890 (talk) 19:48, 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 00:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The AfD process decides if Wikipedia should have an article with this title, and I think it's pretty clear that it should.
The allegations of child-abuse are serious, and need to be well-sourced if they're to remain. In this case they are well-sourced: the guy was convicted and the convictions were reported in newspapers, and the reports are linked. There's not much left to discuss except the level of detail the article should go into, and AfD doesn't prescribe that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The content of BLP is not relevant here at all. The policy is WP:RS, and the sources are sufficiently reliable. DGG (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge The larger topic of molestation by clery could include a list of notable offenders. Otherwise the personage and the events are notable. I would like to see more about the person other than the molestation story.Joe407 (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When I first wrote this article, I tried to provide as much info as possible about the person, and I provided as much as I was able, based on the info I found. The section about his life is about the same size as the one about the posthumous molestation accusations against him. Xyz7890 (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I dont see why the sources shouldnt be considerd main stream and profesnal, also i dont beleave that the negetive facts over takes the importence of this very notable biagraphy.--Chaim Shel (talk) 15:06, 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 merge to Holiday Extras. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airparks

Airport offsite parking operator that has no notability independent of its parent company, Holiday Extras. All references are travel industry sites. Fails WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:ADVERT. I tried re-wording to remove advert tone but there is little to no encyclopedic content worth salvaging. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is another non-notable operation of the same parent company written with a similar WP:TRAVEL tone:

Better Choice Parking (BCP) is independent of Holiday Extras and has a longer history that its parent company. A noteworthy and recognisable brand in the UK, worth keeping. Jonclarke84 (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Airparks to Airpark. No non-trivial reliable sources about this topic. Fails WP:V. Likely search term. -Atmoz (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Airparks and Airpark are completely unrelated and a redirect would not be appropriate.Petland1 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article may be unrelated, but Airparks is also the plural form of Airpark. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 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 00:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Airparks is not the plural form of Airpark in this context. Airpark is a way of parking airplanes at houses in the USA. Airparks is a British brand of car parks. It can be confusing and a redirect would only serve to exacerbate the confusion. Petland1 (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you make a redirect, the current article is no longer the context. The same would apply if I made a redirect out of the article of a non-notable dog called Apples and redirected it to the fruit. Obviously the dog has nothing to do with the fruit, but the redirect would still be suitable, because there'd be no connection made between the two. (Furthermore, the history can be deleted before the redirect is made and the links related to the company can be removed to further enforce this). Do you know an alternative plural for the word Airpark? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase there is "non-notable". If the article in question isn't notable then yes, you're correct. However Airparks is a recognised brand in the UK and unknown in the USA. I think Airparks has enough notability in the UK to be included on Wikipedia (an international site). See National_Car_Parks as an example. Petland1 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 01:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom. All promotional with no encyclopedic material. Them From Space 19:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Airparks and Better choice parking into Holiday Extras, with redirects. For rationales see below - Pointillist (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are different brands of one corporate group:

Holiday Extras press release (here) says they are.
Search of Companies House Webcheck service shows BCP Limited (Company No. 00781158) and Holiday Extras Limited (Company No. 01693250) share the same registered office. The name Better Choice Parking is not registered.
The individual brands are non-notable and appear to be renamed from time to time, to suit the marketing needs of the parent.

One editor is linked to both BCP and Holiday Extras:

Jonclarke84 (talk · contribs) contributed to both the Holiday Extras and Better choice parking articles but now says BCP "is independent of Holiday Extras".
Jonclarke84 matches the name of Holiday Extras' web copywriter Jon Clarke.

Holiday Extras' expertise in affiliate/viral marketing means it is difficult for editors to check for reliability of sources and conflicts of interest, so readers are likely to be mislead if we allow separate articles for all their sub-brands:

Holiday Extras seems to own a large number of sites that may indirectly link back to Wikipeia editors, e.g. Show-and-Stay is owned by Holiday Extras and has articles by "Tony Hill" whose name is similar to user Tonus Hill (talk · contribs) who created the original Holiday extras article.
Editors have cited paid editorial in comparison shopping sites (e.g. travelsupermarket.com ) as reliable sources for statements.
Jon Clarke says "part of my job" is to place articles "via Article Marketer to generate backlinks to our landing pages".
DomainTools links their airparks and BCP brands, e.g. the record for Holidayextras.co.uk links to the record for Airparks.co.uk which links to the parkbcp.co.uk and bcponline.co.uk records.
Holiday Extras pays commission on apparently third party brands (e.g. here).

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Heron Pointe Northville Michigan

A non-notable condominium building with no references or sources either asserting or confirming notability. A PROD tag was twice removed by the article's creator without any improvement to the article. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. An article about an organization that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. -Atmoz (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 per above. No assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry if I've wasted everyone's time. I didn't see the building as being an organization, but of course now that I think of it, it has to be. I'd concur with a speedy deletion. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not necessarily speedy, see my standards. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A7, no assertion of notability, no indication of coverage in any independent source; just a condominium like thousands of others. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:05, 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 07:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aridai

The article makes big claims for a group which doesn't seem to have been mentioned in any independent sources that I can see. Might well qualify as being a form of self-promotion, as I don't know of anyone else that seems to know the group even exists. John Carter (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —John Carter (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google and Google News show no hits for this usage of this name. Seems to be a Spanish surname, and one transliteration of the name of one of Haman's sons from the book of Esther, but only one hit for this usage... on a Myspace blog. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:ORG. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This sounds like a movement that seeks Christian unity (possibly around an unorthodox theology), but has succeeded in nothing more than adding more more to the number of denominations. Unless WP:RS are added and notability is establishe dby the end of the AFD period, then delete. At present it sounds like a NN minor splinter group. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:51, 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. Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Granite Shadow

Utterly unverifiable. Stripped of any guesswork, the article becomes "Operation Granite Shadow is the declassified code-name for a classified plan". Octane (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only source is a dead link, and search engines reveal very little to nothing. There is no evidence it currently exists, see Google News search. It may be a fringe theory, because there is no research available on it, see Google Scholar search. It might have existed, according to DailyKos, not the best source, but now ....? Bearian (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearian. TillsTalk 00:45, 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 00:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete take your pick: unsourced hoax or unsourced conspiracy theory.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:21, 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. X clamation point 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Late Night with Jimmy Fallon guests

Pure trivia. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial list, near impossible to verify. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a good list, it saves time from having to go to the jimmy fallon website, and it is not impossible to verify, i got it from the jimmy fallon website, it's like the list of episodes on every tv shows page
Delete While it could be sourced (just saying here where you got it is not sufficient. the article should have the reference on it), this is likely an unattainable list. This article would end up running something like 5-600 guests long per year. And while it's "like" a list of episodes, it's not: it's a list of guests which would be like a list of all guest stars on law and order. I don't know if this is wikipedia apporopriate fancruft; especially when it already exists on his own website; it's just duplicating information TheHYPO (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. So far this list isn't all that long... If needed this can be resorted by season later. Plus, I for one am NOT going to be crawling to their flash-laden site unless I have a gun to my head.ShawnIsHere (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE completely trivial, completely impossible to verify through reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In 20 years this list will have literally 20 x 400 = 8,000 items. --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep when it gets too long just make it into the format of other shows list of episodes, because there isn't a difference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.151.69 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP it kicks ass —Preceding unsigned comment added by Settledownmybabies (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:TRIVIA and an indiscriminate laundry list. Them From Space 19:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP- who cares if it's trivial, it's wikipedia, who gives a shit, the world won't end because there is a page about guests on Jimmy Fallon's show — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settledownmybabies (talk • contribs) 22:02, April 3, 2009
- cmt to closer this user just !voted twice here. Them From Space 21:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP Hey deletionists, stop wanting to remove every article because of some oxymoronic "policy". Why don't you nominate yourself for deletion? TomCat4680 (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is the best rebuttal I've ever read. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivial list of information duplicated from subject's website. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:39, 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 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live from SoHo (Linkin Park EP)

Non-notable iTunes-exclusive live EP with little or no media coverage of significance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in media coverage. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live from SoHo. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:26, 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 00:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks appropriate sources to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, and no appropriate sources can be found. Randomran (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-charting EP with lack of substantial coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:NM. — Σ xplicit 00:17, 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 delete. X clamation point 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buyersphere

Removed PROD. Bringing to AfD for community view --Ged UK 13:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. The only sources I could find were blogs. This is too soon, and certainly not widespread enough. SilkTork *^YES! 18:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. It's hard to find any evidence that the term has ever been used except by one company. Either way, the term is certainly not widespread, and the sources are very weak. The only source that actually uses this word is, by its own admission, coining it. If there are no independent sources using the term then it cannot be notable enough for wikipedia. I actually suspect this is a veiled attempt at spam for marketing purposes.--Pan20 (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The trademark symbol puzzles me - what are they planning to do with it? Peridon (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be a trademarked word (brand?) coined by Base One Branding. Nothing but an advert with zero evidence of notability. 01:45, 2 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 07:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Paul

Son of Ron Paul who might run for senate in 2010. No reference to independent 3rd party sources in article. No apparent notability of his own, all the Google news hits I read were about his father's Presidential campaign. Burzmali (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Burzmali[reply]

Lots of people who may run for office don't have wikipedia pages and just because someone is the child of someone notable doesn't make them notable. Garynine (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What a load of crock. The page accurately describes one of the leaders of the liberty movement. Rand is a spokeperson in his own right, and is seriously considering a run. In addition, the Kentucky news is full of articles about the run. If you had just taken the time to look at Google news this to be so. This is a one-sided broadside against an ideology with which you disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathani1 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to search for coverage, but failed to find any relevant reliable secondary sources. Please help out. It looks like a subject that should be able to pass WP:NOTABILITY. Nsaa (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:TWINKLE apparently failed to add this to the AFD log when this AFD page was created on 3/30. I added it to the 4/1 log by hand. Burzmali (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Offspring of notable politician. Only potential sources I found were speculating about his potential run for the U.S. Senate, which fails WP:CRYSTAL. -Atmoz (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (ec): There are plenty of sources on Rand as an independent notable. He has been an outspoken advocate in Kentucky for many years. Some of the sources were in the Ron Paul article already in 2007 back when there were talks about spinning out family members. Further, nominator has a habit of proposing AfD related to Ron Paul as documented here and so his AfD choices are demonstrably not neutral. I'd rather not turn this into a sourcing war the week before Passover, so would appreciate concurrence in my opinion. If, however, the deletionists win again, the content should be moved or merged to a Kentucy senate election of 2010 article, per many precedents I can quote. Thanks. JJB 16:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Not to start an argument, but when an requests like this one [3] show up shortly before an article is created, it isn't hard to connect the dots. I suppose we can heap WP:ADVERT on to the pile of reasons for deletion. Burzmali (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Son of a notable figure and a possible candidate for a future election does not meet WP:NOTABILITY Bacchus87 (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:SOURCE and WP:NOTABILITY. With more reliable secondary sources the article may reach WP:NOTABILITY. Nsaa (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete major WP:SOURCE problems here. JBsupreme (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know about no liberty movement, but a quick Google search gives plenty of sources, including a few articles from the LA Times that seem to establish notability. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I originally created this page as a redirect to Ron Paul#Personal life. If the the outcome of this AfD is 'Delete', content should be moved to Ron Paul and a redirect put in place. However, the Ron Paul page is already long enough... -- Big Brother 1984 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found lots of notable hits on google. I think his hits get drowned out by Paul Rand showing in Rand Paul's search. I get a few hits on the first page and many more on the second and third search page. 96.248.7.243 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at this Google News Search [4]. Until Rand starts getting press that is independent of this father, I would argue that he does not have the notability to warrant an article. Burzmali (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable doctor and potenital candidate for office for the remote chance that the incumbent who stated he would seek reelection drops out. The article fails to establish notability, notability is not automatically conferred from dad to son. Hekerui (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, with no prejudice against re-creation if and when more sources become available. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I've seen the article has been re-written, and went back to take a look. The problem now is I'm still not convinced o his notablity. Not many of the sources actually seemed to discuss Rand in detail, more were about Ron, quite frankly. So, the re-write, while admirable, hasn't changed my vote. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed at the number of comments on lack of sources. Did ANY of you bother to do a cursory Google News search? The very first page lists valid Paul articles in these not insignificant publications (not to mention numerous national news outlets such as Fox News): The Los Angeles Times, Evening News and Tribune, Louisville Courier-Journal, and Huntington Herald Dispatch. How many articles would suffice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathani1 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His activies as a spokesman for the liberty movement are well documented, and the article has much potential for expansion (whether or not he runs for the Senate in '10). If the article is not kept, I second Big Brother 1984's suggestion to revert to the redirect to Ron Paul#Personal life (or redirect to United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2010).— Preceding unsigned comment added by JayJasper (talk • contribs) 16:44, 4 April 2009

Comment: At this point, I seriously overhauled the article, and I believe it is appropriate to inform the "delete" voters of this fact (one of whom contacted me unsolicited, in fact). Please note, e.g., the Lexington Herald-Leader and Kentucky Post mentioning his 1996 awards, and the KULR-TV (Billings MT) article that is fully about Rand and only mentions Ron in two sentences. When I came across this heavily-loaded search, including another Bowling Green Daily News piece on ophthalmology, I realized I am not going to finish this tonight. I haven't even touched the Senate election. I affirm Jonathani1's observation about the lack of any real argumentation on the "delete" side; one argument looks to me like arguing from a Google on "'william pitt the younger' -'william pitt'". Fact is, we have now gone way past being the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject; anyone could have done that at any time; and I have, in the interim, tolerated the giant cavernous echo chamber of fallacious attempts to trump the basic notability criterion by redirecting to WP:POLITICIAN, WP:PEOPLE#Invalid criteria, (WP:ADVERT?!,) and WP:RUBBISH, only to demonstrate satisfactorily to myself the flaws in the WP process. Now, as I shut up, I'd appreciate it if we could close this as "keep" instead of "no consensus default keep", if you don't mind. JJB 07:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Response: Yes the article looks a whole lot better, but it hasn't done anything to establish his notability. The links you added the Lexington Herald-Leader are broken and the Kentucky Post article makes doesn't even mention him in the teaser. The KULR-TV article is about Rand stumping for Ron. Not one of the articles listed in the article in from significant new source and specifically about Rand Paul, and his political activism, without mentioning it as a subset of his fathers. The Personal Life section makes up 5 of the 11 paragraphs of the article after you cleaned it up. Burzmali (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sir, the only good faith I have left for you is that you mean well in spite of your intent. JJB 17:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Notable activist, well-sourced article. --darolew 23:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per article overhaul. Gage (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since I commented before and was not in favor of the article I think that since now I see more sources and a better idea of who he is seperate from Ron Paul I think it's worth keeping. Garynine (talk) 15:37, 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 speedy deleted by Jclemens under WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@n1m0$!ty

lacks coverage in 3rd party sources, fails WP:BAND RadioFan (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. For great justice. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No claim to notability (it's not the Earache you're thinking of). Quite possibly hoax (given the date), no coverage on this band or any of the others mentioned in the article, no albums released... and two band members dead in the last two months? Hmm. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC
Delete It's hogwash - no G-Hits to speak of, delete as per nom Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 as pure bollocks. No hits whatsoever, quite alarming for someone supposedly on a bluelink label. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically not eligible, speedy was all ready declined by Icestorm815. Just wait, it's clearly an April Fools joke and will be snowed soon. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability, and no reliable sources. SilkTork *^YES! 18:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I searched Google under the article's title, it produced six hits including this article, one MySpace, a forum and three t-shirt sales sites. The band obviously exists but is small-time. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please keep look the band has just started recently we're working on the wikipedia page its hard for me to do all by myself and small time or not recordings exist to let you hear the band for yourself so they are real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomy1216 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether or not the band is "real" is a completely secondary issue, by the way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vianello (talk • contribs) 09:48, 2 April 2009
Delete, while I suspect the band is real, the only thing I could find was a write up in a school paper, not exactly significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band is real, it isn't a hoax, but it does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards as it is not referenced in reliable, secondary sources. Only mention of this I could find on the Web was MySpace, which is not a reliable source. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not a hoax but there appears to be no significant coverage, charts, or awards. Non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 04:17, 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 for now, but move to Portal:Baseball as suggested below. There's little consensus in this AfD, but the information would be far better organised and accessed from the baseball portal that sitting randomly about in articlespace. Black Kite 15:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 7 in baseball

WP:NOTDIR: this is "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization", there is no reason why a certain day in baseball is notable (baseball is notable, a day is notable in a way, but the combination isn't. That someone was born on day X in 1893 and someone else died on the same day in 1974 is completely irrelevant and has not received widespread attention, there is no actual link between the two events except the double coincidence of baseball plus day. I'll also nominate all other day in baseball articles in this AfD, the reason is the same for all of them of course. Fram (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 1 in baseball, April 2 in baseball, April 3 in baseball, April 4 in baseball, April 5 in baseball, April 6 in baseball, April 7 in baseball, April 8 in baseball, April 9 in baseball, April 10 in baseball, April 11 in baseball, April 12 in baseball, April 13 in baseball, April 14 in baseball, April 15 in baseball, April 16 in baseball, April 17 in baseball, April 18 in baseball, April 19 in baseball, April 20 in baseball

And if someone wonders, as far as I can tell, we have no similar articles for other "in X" categories in the mainspace (many in portals, but that is something different of course). Fram (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I added April 18-20 to the above list as they were created after the discussion began. Tavix : Chat 21:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year have made it very clear that there should be very strict definitions of what can go on to the Days of the year articles. Events that are specific only to Canada, for example, are removed from those articles because they aren't worldly enough. It only makes sense that we have other types of Days of the year articles, such as Days of the year in Canada, and Days of the year in baseball. There is nothing wrong with other projects and portals having their own Days of the year articles, such as Days of the year in film, Days of the year in theatre, Days of the year in hockey. If people are willing to put in the work, then these articles should stay. They serve a purpose, they are of interest. They are encyclopedic. Kingturtle (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oh? Is this an April Fools Day joke? Kingturtle (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

No, I'm pretty serious. Any indication why a random linking of day X with activity Y, regardless of the year, is "encyclopedic" instead of a clear violation of WP:NOT? Fram (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they are all baseball related, then it is not random. Kingturtle (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The linking of baseball with day X is random. People with two I's in their surname in baseball would be also a random joining of two characteristics. This is a collection of trivia, amusing or interesting for some perhaps, but not a topic of research or discussion in reliable independent sources. Fram (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are no less or more random than the Days of the year articles. Give the Days of the year in baseball articles some time. It is going to take some work obviously to get these articles tip-top, but you have to start somewhere. Kingturtle (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way will they be improved so that they are no longer non-encyclopedic crosscategorizations? I don't care about other articles, perhaps these have to go as well, but that is a different discussion. But these ones: the problem is not the current state, but the starting point, the definition, the subject: such pages can never be encyclopedic and acceptable (if there is a day that has a special meaning for a subject, like e.g. a number of events always happening on the same date, then that can be an encyclopedic subject, because in that case, the coupling of day and topic is no longer meaningless: however, I have seen no evidence that any of these dates has such a relationship to baseball, never mind all of them). Fram (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It seems too random a collection of info to be an article/list. I don't see any policies that defend it; I put little faith in the Days of the year WikiProject's views because it is not official. Anyone could start the Un-notable topics WikiProject, that doesn't mean it's right. The info itself is all very good and would fit right in at a baseball wiki, but it's too trivial for Wikipedia. If topics are notable enough they can go on the main day of the year article, but I don't see a benifit to having "This day in baseball, basketball, cross-country skiing, masonry history". A This day in sports series would be more appropriate, but only baseball is too specific. black ngold29 14:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep. I'm not clear on why February 7 is notable, while February 7 in baseball is not because it focuses on baseball. Nor am I clear on why a year is more notable than a day - 1952 in country music, 1978 in motoring, 1920 in film, etc. It seems that people find it useful to have these facts together for research purposes. There are a number of journalist and special interest diaries published which give information on what occured on a given day. I can see some cause for concern that this might be an intersection too far, though I can also see the value of this work, and see how it fits in with existing work being done on Wikipedia. If these baseball articles contained very little information, I could see a valid question of doing them by day rather than year, but they do seem to contain a lot of information which links to existing Wikipedia articles. I'm still pondering on this, but I don't see it as a straight delete. SilkTork *^YES! 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it just seems to be a copy of this. So the information is already out there. SilkTork *^YES! 16:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IT is not simply a copy of the other site. I am not using their information verbatim. I am changing content, editing content, and removing content from their information. I am trying to get all 366 dates up onto Wikipedia so that the Baseball Project Community here can make it their own. But we have to start somewhere. Kingturtle (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be quite a few date articles on Wikipedia which focus down in varying degrees on either the topic or the date or both, such as June 2004 in sports. My concern now is if this particular article meets the main content polices: WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. As they are simple lists presented without opinion, they meet neutral point of view. And as they reproduce material already published elsewhere on baseball-reference.com then the information is not original research, and it is verifiable. I'd like to see a greater range of reliable sources used to support the information, but all in all, these articles meet our core policies, and are in the tradition of Wikipedia. SilkTork *^YES! 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the notability of simple date articles like February 7, and I would prefer if we kept that out of this discussion (but I have no real say in that of course). But the difference between an article on Day X in Baseball vs. Year X in Baseball is taht the total of the second group gives a chronological ordering, where evolutions and so on may be visible (in the best case), and where there may be a definite link between different events (but the births and deaths are mostly not relevant either): no evolution or other information can be gathered from the grouping of events, births or deaths per day though, no matter how notable individual events may be of course. To give a completely fictional example, if year in baseball articles made it possible to note that the first Afro-American player started in 1920, and the first Native American in 1942, then this may lead to at least some conclusions. But the fact that the first Afro-American was born on April 20th, while the first Native American was born on September 7, is utterly irrelevant (for a general list, it is relevant in their personal biographies of course).Fram (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm aware this is an argument to avoid, per WP:NOHARM, but I really do feel that these lists aren't doing any harm to the encyclopaedia. In fact, if we had the time and resources, I'd support doing a [[February 7 in [insert here]]] . As SilkTork mentions, if we can't have this, why do we have February 7 at all? If someone has the time to create these sorts of lists, I'm behind that. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my opinion on why we have a "February 7" and shouldn't have a "February 7 in Baseball". The February 7 article provides encyclopedic information about "February 7" (the day). The "February 7 in Baseball" is an anniversary list of trivia related "facts" about who did what on that day. While the information may be notable, the fact that they happened on February 7 isn't. Tavix (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete asper nom and also WP:DIRECTORY Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see WP:NOTDIR as applicable in this case, and it's a sensible spinoff from the articles on specific dates. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think many people would want to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 29 in rail transport as an applicable predicent for this AfD. The only thing in common between the dates is certain annual events that are found elsewhere such as the All star game, the World Series, and Opening Day. Everything else is redundant trivial information. Tavix (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How trivial can the information be if it's mentioned in numerous reliable sources? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When something is "trivial" it means it is basically a list of trivia. The information might be, but the fact that they are all on Feburary is just trivia. Tavix (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 5 in baseball is no more or less trivial than April 5. Kingturtle (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But where do you draw the line? Are April 5 in Wikipedia history trivial, or April 5 in Middle-earth history, or April 5 in television history notable, or April 5 in pickle packaging history? There has to be some guideline. black ngold29 14:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking Major League Baseball here. It's been around for 130 years. It has a long history of accomplishments, trades, milestones reached, World Series results. As for Days of the year in television, that actually sounds like a great idea - if someone were to put the time into it. You could list birth and death dates, dates of show premieres, dates networks formed or folded. I don't see anything wrong in having Days of the year in Canada either. Many events of importance to Canadian history are not allowed on the Days of the year articles because they are not internationally significant, which is what the Days of the year group has decided for their criteria there. Kingturtle (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where is the line drawn? What makes Canada, TV, and baseball notable? Howabout This day in the life of Stephen King, Mister Rogers, Babe Ruth? Those are all notable topics aren't they? It could build and build and suddenly it's a On this day in X history wiki (that's not a bad idead actually, for another site). black ngold29 15:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're equating the history of Canada with Mister Rogers? Kingturtle (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if Mr. Rogers isn't notable, what line does he fail to cross that Canada does? black ngold29 15:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, Canada is a sovereign nation with 300 years of history. Baseball is an organized professional sport with 130 years of history, was an Olympic sport, has its own version of the World Cup, has professional leagues in over 15 nations. Television has 60 years of history, has changed culture, politics and society. Fred Rogers is a person who was not a nation, had little international significance, and did not have a dozen significant events take place every day of the year. Kingturtle (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Rogers produced a show for children for over 30 years, he's likely got more honors and awards than anyone else in his field, he's been recognized by the US House, Senate, and President. So if that's not enough to make someone notable for a Day in the Life series, than there probably aren't any people notable enough for it. Now that that's settled, I still haven't gotten a specific statement of what makes things notable. ~~The History of rail transport has a 500 year history, would a This day in the history of rail transport series be feasible?~~ lol, oops. I guess so. Anyway, here's what I see so far as your criteria: History of a number of years, international significance, changed politics, culture, or society. So that would be pretty much every country, many large companies, and every major sport. That's a lot of articles (or lists, not sure which). Do those criteria sound right? black ngold29 16:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why each nation shouldn't have its own Day of the year articles. You may not be privy to the conversations going on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year, but they've made it quite clear that if an event doesn't have international significance, then they won't include it. Because of that argument, it's only natural that sub-groups are created. I see nothing wrong with Days of the year in Canada. That would be only 366 articles, not a lot. If there is enough information and interest to create such things, there should be Days of the week in <insert sport> and Days of the week in <insert industry>. This is an enyclopedia, a place where information can be presented in different formats. Kingturtle (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is where we disagree. I see 366 articles that have no real goal (I can't see them being FLs, GAs, or FAs) as quite a lot of articles. And I already noted earlier that what any WikiProject has to say is meaningless when compared to policies. black ngold29 01:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A great many articles will never become FLs, GAs or FAs. That is not an argument not to have them. With your stance, the article February 4 has no merit existing on Wikipedia and should be deleted. Kingturtle (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't my stance, I have no problem with articles that can't be GAs etc., however, I think that there should be something to work toward. I've worked on Slipknot Demo and it's apparent that with the current info people won't let it become a GA, but there is a chance that more info will come to light and it will be able to be improved. I don't see that poetential with these articles. There's no prose, no citations, virtually no self-containment. What's the goal? Collecting this info with no third party cites that have already connected it is WP:OR in itself. black ngold29 01:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities ending on A, ending on B, ... It's a different format, it are only 26 articles compared to the massive 366, it has perfectly clear inclusion criteria... What's the difference between my ridiculous example and your date in Baseball ones? Fram (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball is an organized professional sport with 130 years of history, was an Olympic sport, has its own version of the World Cup, has professional leagues in over 15 nations. Kingturtle (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So baseball is more important than cities? Please try again, Kingturtle, you are not adressing the issue at all. Fram (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"List of cities ending on A,..." is a legitimate example of a non-encyclopedic cross-classification. Encyclopedic articles follow other sources in how they organize information. Organizing historical information by date is a clear example of an encyclopedic topic because it is an approach that is routinely used by other publications, Web sites, and sources of information. An obvious example is Wikipedia's own Main page, but information is also organized by date on many other sites and publications (for example, [5], [6], [7]), and even on sites for baseball history ([8]). This type of information can be useful—for example, sportswriters often refer to events that happened on "this date" in history, and these Wikipedia articles could provide them with that information. (For an example, see the bottom of this article [9].) BRMo (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Borgarde (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are a horrible precedent; we can now have 366 more articles from each article we have. February 7 in football, February 7 in aviation, February 7 in virology, February 7 in astronomy, February 7 in Paducah, Kentucky, February 7 in medicine, February 7 in Sammy Davis Junior, February 7 in South Park, February 7 in ufology, and thousands (2.8 million?) more and 365 others for each of those for Jan 1 thru Dec 31. No, thanks, but we could have our one billionth article later this month that way ;-) . Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- you can't be serious that you're equating Canada with Sammy Davis Junior. Kingturtle (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Carlossuarez46 - "Setting a precedent" is not really a problem, since per WP:OTHERSTUFF, if these articles are kept, that doesn't preclude deleting other "February 7 in X" articles. So the notability of "February 7 in baseball" is decided independently of "February 7 in Sammy Davis Junior". In my opinion, you haven't given a valid reason for deletion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When Wikipedia devotes about 10 percent of its main page to "On this day...", I don't see how it can be argued that articles organizing information by date are "non-encyclopedic" or non-notable. Encylopedia's are about organizing, synthesizing, and presenting information, and this is one way to do it. The information is verifiable; there are no issues of original research or non-neutral POV; these articles fully meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. BRMo (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the policy WP:NOT cited in the nomination? The main page is used to invite people in, and to present a wide variety of subjects so that it will interest the largest possible group. The main page is not an article but a portal, and as stated, I have no problems with "on this day" articles on portals. But as an article, they fail misearbly, because the subject is non-encyclopedic: the pairing of two encyclopedic things does not automatically create a new encyclopedic subject, but in many cases (like these) a collection of unrelated facts. Fram (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an example of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. If dates are encyclopedic for history in general, there is no reason they shouldn't be encyclopedic for specific topics that have a history, including sports and even baseball. And I don't buy your distinction between articles and portals either. The main page links to three date articles. An encyclopedia should be about compiling and organizing verifiable knowledge, not deleting it. BRMo (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No information will be deleted if these pages get deleted, only one method of presenting it will be deleted. I have still not gotten one good reason why baseball related things that happened on the same day in different years are somehow related. What is the link between the birth of a baseball player in 1924 and one in 1949 on January 3, which separates them from someone born on January 4? Are they better players? More likely to become MVPs? Homerun hitters? Greeneyed? Taller? Or does, perhaps, the day of their births have no meaning at all? I am all for presenting information in meaningful formats: list of players per team or per year of birth (since their careers will have roughly coincided and they will have competed one another) may be perfectly relevant. But not one person wanting to keep these articles has given one reason why the day they were born, died, ... is in any way relevant as a method of grouping.Fram (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because a lot of people (though apparently, not you) are interested in knowing what happened on a particular date, especially on the anniversary of an event. That's why dates are continuously featured on Wikipedia's Main page, why books like A Dictionary of Dates are published, and why newspapers and news shows frequently mention events occurring on that day or various notable anniversaries or birthdays. No, it's not science and no one will ever get a PhD for compiling a list of dates. But organizing events by date it is a part of human knowledge and is useful for satisfying people's curiosity, and thus it's within the scope of Wikipedia. I haven't contributed to compiling these lists myself, and it's not really the kind of editing I like doing. But we have an editor who wants to do this work and I appreciate and can use the results. BRMo (talk) 00:31, 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 07:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these pages should be moved to subpages of Portal:Baseball. I see "on this day" pages as collections of only very mildly linked topics, more useful for highlighting of specific events than true encyclopedic usefulness. If the baseball portal isn't interested in hosting these pages and linking to them, delete. Kusma (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When you think about it, it really is going overboard with specifics where we don't need them. Wizardman 13:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate pages for browsing, whichis oen of the functions of an encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - In this case, a bundled nomination is not very productive. Each article should be evaluated separately to decide if enough happened on that day to justify a navigational article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:NOT. I can live with generic date articles, but having date articles by subject is just a can of worms. Sourcing? Weight? NPOV? WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Multiplying essentially pointless non-encyclopedic articles is just an invitation to look silly. If we're happy with February 7 in baseball, why not February 7 in Angels on the Head of a Pin Debate? There must be baseball websites for this sort of thing. WP:NOT Everything We Can Think Of That Can Theoretically Be Sourced (But Actually Isn't And Probably Never Will Be). Rd232 ^talk 19:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Each Days of the year in <insert topic> would be judged on its own merit and value. By allowing this one, you are not giving a blanket approval to all future Days of the year topics. Baseball has a long history, is an international game. And for the record, nothing on March 7 is sourced, so why should everything on March 7 in baseball be sourced. That's why we have wikilinks. You want confirmation that Pud Galvin was born on March 7, then click on his name, and the Pud Galvin will source it. Kingturtle (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Anyway sourcing aside it's still a bad idea both in general and for baseball. WP:NOT a baseball stat/trivia website. Rd232 ^talk 20:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - These Days of the year articles are simply another way of organizing information that already exists on Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - What it is doing is taking barely connected information and putting it into an article for trivia purposes. The only thing in common for most of these is the fact that they are baseball related and take place on a certain day. We already have all of this information in other places where it is encyclopedic, properly sources, and non-trivial. Tavix | Talk 02:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. List of events for each day of the year are considered encyclopedic enough for the main page, and baseball has its own portal (Portal:Baseball), which I think is a decent enough criteria for inclusion of such lists of events (and to avoid a slippery slope feared by some people here). We happen to have an editor willing to do the work here, trees are safe since Wikipedia is not made of paper, as for the main objection, I don't consider arranging events chronologically (modulo one year) a form of cross categorization. Reading various comments above, I also have to point out here that pages such as February 7 are mere lists of events, only select entries such as January 1 are the subject of an actual article. Equendil Talk 22:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Portal:Baseball. Create a "This Day in Baseball" series on the Baseball Portal, I think it's more appropriate. It could be a seperate tab at the top of the page that goes to a page like Portal:Baseball/March 1. Borgarde (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's an excellent idea. black ngold29 03:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Tavix's delete !vote halfway up the page referenced another Afd — Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 29 in rail transport — as a possible precedent for this discussion, and I'd agree. It's worth noting, however, that the result of that discussion was a No consensus, a decision that was also affirmed at DRV. Both those discussions were valuable, though, as they kick-started a discussion at the Trains project about how to better maintain the information in the Portal space. To date, 4 1/2 of the 12 months worth of articles have been repurposed into Portal space. In that regard, I think that's an excellent model for how to resolve this issue. Keep these articles for now, and let the Baseball project undertake a systematic move of the content to that project's Portal space, without the time pressure associated with a deletion discussion. Mlaffs (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Simply ridiculous! Giant Snowman 02:22, 10 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 07:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Family Parish (Pasig)

Was PRODded, but there was a contest on the talk page, so bringing here for community decision. --Ged UK 12:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of why this church is any more important than any other church in the world Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no demonstration of notability here; parishcruft - little different than any other nn parish church (RC or otherwise). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability available, no indication of what makes this parish church special. If the article does survive it needs a lot of spam removing. Nuttah (talk) 10:36, 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 speedily deleted per G4 - was basically the same article with some bits missing. Nancy ^talk 15:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Days

AfDs for this article:

Does not meet notability. A ranking on YouTube does not establish notability. The other reference from the magazine is trivia coverage. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Not sure if this qualifies as G4 since I can't view content of old article. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G4 Seems to be the same article. I'd have G4d it first, whoever deals with it will check the articles and reading the previous afd it seems to bring up the same issues. --neon white talk 12:44, 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 delete. X clamation point 02:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Free Bible

This bible translation being developed on Wikisource is not yet notable, with only one reliable source that I am aware of about the English Wikisource translation.[10] There are also Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese editions of this Wikisource project, so maybe reliable sources exist for those, however as those translation teams are not collaborating with the English translation team, I think they should be considered separate translations.

This page could be merged into the Wikisource article, however sourcing will still be a problem. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have announced this deletion on English Wikisource[11][12] so the closing admin should beware of Wikisource contributors ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being another Wikimedia project does not automatically make it notable. No evidence of notability offered. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of third-party, reliable sources that cover the topic in more than a trivial way. Fails WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless there is significant coverage in other reliable sources (as mentioned above by John Vandenberg). Cirt (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a Merge into Bible, probably in the See also section. — Ken g6 (talk) 20:25, 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. Black Kite 00:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Denton

AfDs for this article:

Previously PRODed article by an IP user, which was deleted by another IP user. Page is for a footballer who has never played at a fully-professional level, failing notability at WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 10:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the first AfD listed was for a completely different individual of the same name. - fchd (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 13:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nowhere near to being a notable sportsperson. Does not meet WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:34, 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 00:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet and may never be notable. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oi Leave our striker alone - hes fab and he will be playing for us next season and he will go on to play for England then all you twerps who wanted to delete him will look like you are a bunch of silly billies ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.204.228 (talk) 22:36, 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 already deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9lessons

Prod was removed - Blog that doesn't assert notability, very little coverage in any third party sources. ∗ \ / (⁂) 10:02, 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 07:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samar Chatterjee

Doesn't appear to satisfy any of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response of Sushila Maru: It seems you are misinterpretting the Notability criteria. Please be specific. I do not believe that this article should be deleted. If you would like to address specific needs, please do so. We shall be happy to provide additional information that you can include in editing this article so that it is not deleted. I have a lot of problem wading thru the wiki instructions. Even the simple uploading of the photograph has been a problem, even though I have furnished all the info for licensing and copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushila69 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been following this article for a while and got some outside input on it's current content. After considering the sources and looking at the citations trail, my conclusion is this person does not pass WP:Prof - that is to say, he has not made a significant impact on his expert community. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May keep (49%) as a stub for the time being. This needs his contributions with noted wikis in his field of research.

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost every substantive edit to this article has been from a single account (Sushila69) which has done no other editing inside Wikipedia. This editor seems to know an immense amount about the private life and pre-notable career of the article's subject - and has not provided references for any of that material. This STRONGLY suggests that this is a vanity article put up either by the subject himself or a close friend, colleague or relation. Given the borderline (at best) notability of the subject and the risks with articles about living persons, I have to err on the side of caution and recommend a 'Delete' - at least until/unless Sushila69 shows conclusively that he/she has no personal interest in the subject. Reducing the article to a stub containing only the directly referenced material is, perhaps, an acceptable alternative - but patrolling the article to ensure that it doesn't "grow back" would have to be undertaken by someone before I could agree to that course of action. SteveBaker (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable acheivement apparent here. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep An article isn't written in a day. I think all that the page needs is a list of notable awards/recognitions. Otherwise it's a good article, bio+work, better than most porn-actress BLPs I have seen so far. If you can keep those, this dude is an angel, researching nuclear waste recycling. Definite keep! Nshuks7 (talk) 06:50, 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 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cao Pao

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cao Pao

Apparently a historical personage, but actually just someone's fanciful imagination. This person never existed, not in history, not in fiction. (Not in Rafe de Crespigny's biographical dictionary of the Three Kingdoms period) In other words, a hoax created by someone who claims he knows "true history". Too bad it's never going to be verifiable. _dk (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and warn user that Wikipedia is not SecondLife. --Nlu (talk) 14:11, 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 00:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams do not count as sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:35, 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 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merali Jivraj

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:25, 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 00:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don´t see any reputable references given in the article and the links given by the original editor in the discussion page is a copy of the article in wikipedia.--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BEFORE requires nominators and commenters to make an effort to find sources before writing off an article. Just because the article's current sources aren't reliable, doesn't mean the article shouldn't be here. It could simply be a case of a newbie editor not knowing what are the proper sort of sources to use. A trout for Kittybrewster for providing a non-rationale for the nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with MGM in general, but in this case, dunno. I tried to find sources, and only found two dubious ones, which I added. There are a few others like [13] that confirm that the family was a power in the Ugandan business world at one time. Nothing to back up most of the content. Possibly the author could provide better ones. The difficulty is that back issues of Ugandan newspapers and magazines from the 1950s and 1960s are very unlikely to be online. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:22, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saetia

Lack of reliable coverage of this band. Google news provides no hits and no allmusic article. neon white talk 07:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An article from "Metal Injection" says "Over the course of the last decade, the dissonant hardcore sound that was reinvented and pioneered by CTTS and other luminaries like PG. 99 , HOT CROSS , ORCHID , and SAETIA...". Thus this asserts the notability of the band, as a pioneering figure. [14]. -Binary TSO ^???
Keep No Allmusic entry, you say? Well, what's this, calling them "one of the great screamo bands"? Or this four-and-a-half-stars-out-of-five review of their retrospective? This was a pioneering '90s underground screamo group, whose lack of news coverage is due to the fact that major news agencies don't cover underground hardcore (not, thereby, a reason for us to ignore it). You're looking in the wrong places (as usual!). Idiomag reviewed their retrospective eight years after the group broke up. Tiny Mix Tapes calls them "Genre-defining" [15], and Prefix Magazine called them "monumental". [16]. Geoff Rickly of Thursday, in an interview with Alternative Press, said he regards them as pivotal among his early influences (they played in his basement!). [17] A review of offline '90s punk publications would provide reviews (try Punk Planet, HeartattaCk, and Maximum Rocknroll). The group meets WP:MUSIC points 6 and 7, the former for its connections to the highly notable Hot Cross and Interpol(!). Chubbles (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all trivial mentions in largely unreliable sources. We can't rely on circular notbility either. Common sense applies to all guidelines. There is certainly no evidence whatsoever that this band is "the most prominent representative of a notable style". To suggest so is stretching criteria a long way past breaking point. --neon white talk 16:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all the case. Allmusic, Tiny Mix Tapes, and Prefix are all well-established review sites, and the TMT and Prefix references are necessarily retrospective, having been written about Hot Cross, a more recent band. When Hot Cross was signed to Equal Vision, everyone sat up and said, "Hey, that's the singer from Saetia!". Are they the most prominent? I don't know how to determine that, and it sounds like it'd be largely a matter of opinion anyway, but they are undoubtedly one of the most prominent. Chubbles (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Mix Tapes, and Prefix have no reputation at all. We have to insist on good sources with reputations not just someones random, one of the literaly thousands out there, website because we cannot find any better sources, this suggests non-notability to be. We don't extend the idea of reliable coverage to include anything. If we did this notability would be a pointless concept. Notability can't really be inherited from another band who's notability is seriously questionable as well and seems to largely rely on having members of a previous band that in my opinion is equally non-notable. --neon white talk 05:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do extend it to third-party review sites; this is independent coverage, and the Allmusic reviews (seemingly ignored by all observers) are illuminating as well. The fact that there are thousands of websites out there is meaningless, and I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove; all I've attempted to prove is that this particular group is of sufficient renown to merit encyclopedic interest. Hot Cross and Interpol are both quite notable; there is no serious question about this. Chubbles (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point of notability is that there is a line, we don't move it to include anything we want or there would be little point in the policy existing. It says significant coverage in reliable sources and the burden of proof is on the sources to prove reliabilty. We usually consider reputation, history and editorial control as factors in reliability. It's very rare that a small music review webzine/site/blog is going to have any of those. THe point i am making is that it is very easy for people to self-publish music reviews and there are thousands who do, so it's almost inevitable that any non-notable band is going to be 'noted' be one of these sources and that is why we don't usually consider them. It might be independent coverage but it isn't in a publication of any note or reputation. The allmusic reviews are fine but not usually enough to establish notability. Hot Cross notability is questionable and not established in the article and seems to be based on circular notability. Persons who were with a band whilst they were still unknown usually do not inherit any notability from them so i think the interpol link is not relevent. --neon white talk 08:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, Hot Cross is notable. Also note how often Saetia keeps getting brought up in these reviews; Hot Cross was like a screamo supergroup, with Saetia leading the pack of forefathers. If this were one or two small-market self-publications you'd have a case, but it's not. There is a clear consensus outside of Wikipedia that this group is important, and I am trying to have that reflected inside of Wikipedia. Chubbles (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Chubbles said above, you might not find a lot of "mainstream" sources for this band, but there's a wealth of "underground" media reporting on them. I'll take some time myself to add to the article, as it is currently lacking any good sources at all. neon white has a point. I'll stay neutral until I can find some good sources to back up the claims made. Radiant chains (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not being covered by mainstream reliable sources generally suggests something isn't notable. Remember this isnt a music directory. --neon white talk 16:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This argument amounts to "the group does not pass WP:GNG even though it passes WP:MUSIC, and so should be deleted". What is the purpose of having WP:MUSIC if we are not going to use it as an indicator of a group's significance? Chubbles (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC is a guideline not a policy, it's there so that editor can get an idea of what might be considered notability in music articles, reliable sources are still required to establish all notability. We don't simply rely on an editor's opinion that the band is important or one of the criteria is met. --neon white talk 08:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is also a guideline. The only policy we're dealing with here is WP:V, and the sources brought to light so far verifiably demonstrate that the group has significant connections to other notable outfits and that they were important representatives of their style. Chubbles (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i dont see how it fulfills the criteria in either guide. --neon white talk 05:49, 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 00:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chubbles. Band has notable members and is influential in this style of music. Tomdobb (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither statement has been verified. --neon white talk 08:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singer Billy Werner is in Hot Cross, drummer Greg Drudy was a member of Interpol (band). This meets criteria six of WP:BAND.Tomdobb (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the original nomination, Google News does bring up some matches. Radiant chains (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable ones. --neon white talk 08:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's see: this band's heyday was in the late 1990's, which means online references would be spotty. So has anyone bothered to look for the NYC equivalent of NME or The Rocket & see if they merited coverage? At the least, I'd hope someone has investigated whether Greg Drudy could be verified as a member of this group, which is it's strong claim to notability at the moment. (The article on Drudy lacks any citations at this writing.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a review from UC-Davis that comes up on a Google news search[18]. Reg is required to view it, but it contains this quote, "Drummer Greg Drudy was a founding member of Interpol." Tomdobb (talk) 20:34, 10 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 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infacted Recordings

A non-notable record company who's lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources means it fails to meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:44, 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 00:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. And cast a skeptical eye on all the bluelinked bands mentioned in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm working my way through tagging them at the moment. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:29, 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. Needs cleanup expansion and sourcing or else it will be back (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Rowley

Unsourced, non-notable actress, bit-player is not notable. MBisanz ^talk 06:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can source it, but I'm getting just 12 hits across the newspapers. All I can find is what's there, as well as her walking out of the television show "Trust Me: I'm A Holiday Rep" and being replaced by Paul Burrell and a trivial holiday mishap. Hiding T 09:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the sources, but I lean towards deletion. Hiding T 09:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree with absolute deletion, perhaps a move somewhere into the Hollyokas main page or minor/recurring characters would be better?--D-Weaving —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.63.116.72 (talk) 16:37, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She had a non-minor role in Hollyoaks and its spinoff and placed in a major competition (it is my personal opinion that televised competitions with millions of viewers count as long as it is verifiable). The Holiday Rep thing was too short to be notable, but with the other stuff confirmed, it doesn't have to be. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand and further source. Wiki does not care if minor, if coverage neets the GNG. Google News. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all coverage in the above google news search is trivial, and therefore this article does not meet the GNG. I can't find any sources that can serve as the backbone for this article without needing a synthesis to make sense. Them From Space 16:46, 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 speedy delete. speedied as a copyvio Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Weinberg

No citations, not notable, self-promotion. Grey Smoke (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy Delete as a copyvio of http://www.larryweinberg.com/flexSite/LarryWeinberg.html -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 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 redirect to Stick Sports. If it's believed that Stick Sports is not notable, then nominate it for deletion. If it gets deleted then this article can be deleted under CSD G8 (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stick Tennis

Non-notable web-game. MBisanz ^talk 05:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was three lines in The Guardian about Stick Sports the other week, but that's all I can turn up. Hiding T 09:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and briefly cover at Stick Sports. This is a similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stick Baseball. Marasmusine (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering neither this nor Stick Sports show any notability whatsoever (or, for that matter, Stick Cricket), delete. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:25, 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 23:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jdimypai Damour

WP:ONEEVENT, The event itself received national coverage but this article focuses more on the event than the individual. Article is at this point completely unsourced. Mfield (Oi!) 05:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. It tells us where he is from and that he worked at Wal-mart, besides that, it describes the event.
Judicatus | Talk | Contributions
08:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete A clear case of WP:ONEEVENT; subject is not notable in any other way. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it horrible that you can say "not notable in any other way". Jeez - someone died. ALL human life should be celebrated ... are the 96 who dies at Hillsbrough notable .. they are all named on the page related to that disaster. Is someone more important if they die with lots of other people? If that;s the case where is the page listing the victims of the Nazi death camps? SICK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.252.87 (talk) 23:50, 15 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 00:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G11, blatant attempt to promote the websites listed. Mgm|^(talk) 11:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aviation archaeology websites & resources

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Aviation archaeology websites & resources

Delete - No real content, just a list of websites. Per Wikipedia NOT, this should qualify for deletion.Wacko Jack O 05:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Wacko Jack O 06:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Wacko Jack O 15:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree / Keep - the deletion criteria states The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The article's lead makes such a claim, making a deletion argument moot. Check-Six (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that is the criteria for "speedy deletion".Wacko Jack O 05:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that's correct. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTLINK and as it doesn't meet WP:WEB. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a link farm. -Atmoz (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wow. Just wow. I cannot believe we are even discussing this, it fits SPEEDY DELETION criteria. JBsupreme (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatantly against WP:NOTLINK. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:49, 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 10:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Alpha Lambda

Delete as a non-notable sorority. Tavix (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable only to its members. LargoLarry (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N; not notable enough for inclusion. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:48, 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 05:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources apparent from a google search. This does not appear notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per LargoLarry & Tempodivalse.
Judicatus | Talk | Contributions
08:03, 1 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 delete. And Zagalejo, articles can't be speedied as hoaxes. X clamation point 02:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Craig Delmendo

Basketball player who hasn't played beyond the high school level, fails WP:ATHLETE since he hasn't competed in the highest level amateur competition or league. Notwithstanding, he might pass WP:N based on the fact that he was named an all American and some other grandiose claims made, but I couldn't even find local coverage on this individual. Zero hits on google and gnews makes me think this is nothing more than NN self-promotion. Senseless!... says you, says me 05:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable, third-party sources that discuss the topic in more than a trivial manner. -Atmoz (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability - Whpq (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax. Someone with his supposed accomplishments would have received a ton of press. Here is the McDonald's All-American Game All-Time roster as of 2008, and here is this year's roster. He's nowhere to be found. Zagalejo^^^ 07:01, 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 03:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Head (Documentary)

Film fails all of the notability criteria for films. This appears to be a straight to DVD release that hasn't been screened anywhere. A google search for "Fat Head" "Tom Naughton" reveals some coverage in blogs, but nothing that would satisfy the general notability requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This movie may eventually garner enough coverage to warrant an article here, but as wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it's a too early for an article now. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not using "This appears to be a straight to DVD release that hasn't been screened anywhere." as a reason, are you? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NF and WP:N. No significant coverage in any reliable sources. Add is basically another platforming of one of many who guestioned Super Size Me (indeed, some points are nearly word from word from dozens of other sites) Also curious about it being a "2009" article, when the one RS I did find is from 2008,[19] while I see blog postings about it from 2007? As an aside, considering SPA nature of the creator and ad-like quality of the article (repleat with spam) and his deprodding his own article, I would guess this was created by Naughton or one of his representatives. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing relevant notability criteria. Note that I was notified of the article here, FWIW, though I think it fails notability pretty unarguably. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 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 00:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient reliable sources to establish notability. I.e. the Chronical review is great but until another couple of reviewers pick it up it's too early for a Wikipedia article. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy back to author as just a tad premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the review in Box Office Magazine added by Squeakles it scrapes by on notability grounds. Whether it needs cutting down to get rid of unverifiable material is not a case for AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A single review isn't significant coverage though. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:00, 10 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 02:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airi & Meiri

AfDs for this article:

After weeks of AfD closure as no consensus, no sourcing has been added. The key claim to notability that they were "rare porno twins", has been proven to be incorrect via translation in the talk page, and in fact Meiri's bio data cannot be established. Since there is no longer any claim to notability, only to existence, I am re-listing for AfD. Cerejota (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close less than a month has elapsed. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It hasn't been that long, and nothing has changed that will convince people to change their vote. Sure, they might not be real twins, but it doesn't matter, they are still a notable act in the Japanese porn industry. Dream Focus 04:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is not true. They are not notable - and the article doesn't claim (sourced or unsourced) that they are for any reason. They are just porn actresses, like thousands other. --Cerejota (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - it has been barely two weeks since the no consensus close (on 13 March). You've got to give more time than that for something to happen if it is not violating BLP, which this is not. Aleta ^Sing 05:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question Because I find this argument compelling, are we to ignore the fact that the only claim to notability has been proven false? This being a BLP and all that. A good argument will lead to me retiring the nom. --Cerejota (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article lists their recording and several magazine "appearances". That seems to be a claim to notability, which would preclude the A7 speedy deletion you said should be appropriate in the last AfD. As to whether the recording and magazine appearances actually constitute enough real notability, I am not qualified to comment one way or another. This entire topic area is one with which I am not familiar, and I do not read Japanese. Aleta ^Sing 06:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor who does know Japanese claimed it they were not notables (and less relevant, claimed to have worked with one of the two models). I do agree is not speedy, which is why I raised a new AfD... I just felt this new development needed attention.--Cerejota (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and Comment Airi & Meiri were promoted as "ふたご"-- this word is used in titles to their videos. Yahoo translates ふたご as "twins... a twin". An anonymous editor popped up on the article's talk page to claim this does not mean twins, and this has spurred the original Speedy/Prod/AfD-nominator to take another stab at it. However, HERE I asked a longtime native-Japanese-speaking editor about this question and she has confirmed that the word does mean "twin," not "look-alike". The pair were promoted as twins. The nominator's new "evidence" for this AfD is false, and this new AfD is not only premature, it is groundless. Dekkappai (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is also disingenuous for the nominator to claim no work has been done on the article. Work was done during the last AfD and aggressively reverted by the nominator and other editors. This aggressive guarding of the article has continued in the weeks since the closure of the last AfD. To show that work on the article would be possible, if allowed, I have just posted an expanded and better-sourced version of the article HERE. Dekkappai (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As WP:NOTAGAIN and due to meeting WP:N. Hobit (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close Way too soon for such a contentious AfD to be given a new round. -- Banjeboi 00:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could an admin help move Articles for deletion/Airi & meiri to Articles for deletion/Airi & Meiri? -- Banjeboi 00:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Lotta people citing essays or complaining about technical points. None of them can offer any factual claims verifiable in reliable sources. The sources Dekkappai refers to as "aggressively reverted" are catalogs, advertisements, and other promotional material. So he can't complain about people removing them for some sort of vaguely nefarious reason, let's look at this version's references in detail.
1. This is a profile on a site selling videos of them, and the factuality of the claim (their birthdates) is in question. Since their birthdate is part of the selling point of their act and this site is selling that act, it's not much of a reliable source.
2. This is another profile on a site selling videos of them. Again, not really reliable for anything but the claim that they've made pornographic films, and not really very good for establishing notability (since there's no commentary and they're selling a product). It's also not a reliable source to establish that they're twins, since, again, this is a selling point touted by people who are selling something.
3. This is a database of AV idols. I can't find any info on who it is maintained by, or where its info comes from.
4. This is ANOTHER site selling videos.
5. This is Amazon.co.jp selling a video that another, unreliable site says is the same person, and does not mention the Airi & Meiri act.
6. Yet another site selling videos.
7. This is exactly the same as #6.
8. This is yet another site selling videos, and does not take note of the director or describe him as noted.
9. This is ANOTHER SITE SELLING VIDEOS, touting the selling points of something they're selling.
10. The same site as #9, touting the selling points of something they're selling.
11. A promotional site, cited to reference the fact that there was a promotional site with promotional materials.
12. This is a weekly newsletter that mentions A&M as one of more than a dozen idols who have a blog. Nothing more than a passing reference.
13. This is their promotional blog.
14. This is a promotional site for the company that ran the promotional event, and the site doesn't work so I can't tell you what it says.
15. #6 and #7 strike again. The song is not described as featured, and the featured selling point of this video is obvious.
16. This is a promotional site run by the publishers of their single.
17. This has three strikes against it. The event doesn't feature A&M. A&M are only mentioned in passing, as one of a half-dozen guest appearances. And it's the site run by the operators and promoters of the event.
18. This is the same newsletter from before, saying that A&M were one of multiple idols appearing at an event that attracted a whopping 200 people.
19. This is a newspost on a fansite (not a news site, as the article claims) that speculates that a TBS anime was inspired by A&M, based on the similarity between the chord progression.
I'm done listing from here on out. #20-23 are all av-channel.com, another site selling videos. #24+ are all sites selling videos or magazines, cited to prove nothing more than that videos and magazines exist and are for sale.

So. Where's the reference that makes any factual claim about these "twins" that isn't selling something? Where's the reference that mentions them as more than one of a dozen or so idols? Where's the reference we're going to use to write a biography? Do we have a reliable source that claims that they're twins, or even related?

WP:BAND isn't met; they've not released even one album or headlined even one show. WP:PORNBIO isn't met, as there are no awards here, no genre they've founded or contributed to, nor any featured appearances in notable mainstream media. (Bubka is not mainstream, the shows they made guest appearances at are far from notable as they've only merited offhand mention in online newsletters, and the rest are specialist porn/erotica sold through specialist sellers.)

And in response to those who are complaining about the fact that there's a second AFD: "Despite the outcome of this AfD, can I suggest to the maintainers of this article that there is a huge question mark over the reliability of these sources - Rightly or wrongly, I forsee us being right back here again very soon if something more substantial is not found." Nothing more substantial has been found; indeed, many of the insubstantial would-be references are here back in the article, and haven't improved with time. So here we are again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfDs are here to prove notability, not to hold articles up to FA standards. The sources above prove that these are notable subjects. The duo starred in top-selling videos for years[20][21], with at least one in the #5 spot three years after its release[22]. They made public appearances[23],[24],[25], interviews[26], etc. Note that Man in Black has again deleted the article and sourcing. This is why, during the extensive time since the last AfD-- or was that just a few weeks ago?-- no work has been done on the article. Dekkappai (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Save a couple of offhand references in newsletter hosted on Allabout.co.jp and the New-Akiba.com reference, everything is a shop selling you something. Where's the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Implying that I have some sort of grudge doesn't add that to the article, and it doesn't make these good sources for a BLP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Dekkappai's links aren't new. They're the exact same links I addressed above, mostly selling you videos, selling you tickets to events where they make a guest appearance, or advertising a show. Repetition hasn't improved them significantly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd just like to add that this entire fiasco over this article is a classic case of attempting to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. Had the nominator and a few other editors trusted the Wikipedia community to look at the article and to judge the work done on it during the AfD, without repeatedly blanking it, I, for one, might not have made the effort to dig up these hard-to-find, but indisputable, evidence of "notability". That the sources don't hold up to GA/FA standards is, of course, beside the point. The removed sourcing shows that the duo are internationally-known, notable performers, who are still top-sellers years after their career together has ended. Dekkappai (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not hold up to WP:N. (The bulk of the commentary is in non-independent, non-reliable sources. The remainder is far from significant.) Nobody has mentioned GA or FA but you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted half of the article. [27] That does seem like a lot. Some of that information, such as mentioning how many videos they each stared in, I think relevant. Not all their films are listed after all. Do you object to the mention of them doing 30 videos, because the reference is to a commercial site that confirms it? Where else would you find a reference for that? If it was someone in the music industry, wouldn't they link to the official company site to confirm some information, even if they had a website which also sold their products? I think links to the official site of them or the company that produced their products would be perfectly fine. As for the rest, is there any reason to doubt the specific information referenced is false if coming from that site? I don't think being on a commercial site automatically makes something invalid as a reference. Dream Focus 01:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, I deleted half of the article. I'm not going to put up with badly-sourced claims in a BLP. A single link to their official site is one thing, or to companies they've worked with, but not dozens(!) of links to catalog sellers passed off as sources.

As for reasonable doubt, I have reason to doubt catalog sellers when they are touting the features of their products, especially when these features (popularity, relation, age, status as twins) cannot be confirmed in any reliable source.

If someone wants to add an external link to their blog, the publisher of their videos, etc. that's fine. If someone wants to pass it off as a reliable source, we have a problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not about to let this AfD get flushed down the same toilet as the last one. I'm deleting a personal attack and a reference to it. Stay CIVIL. — Gwalla | Talk
Speedy keep as, and with no disrespects to the nominator, but wih millions of articles on wikipedia, it is a bit much to expect everyone to drop interest in other articles and jump to improve this one in just the few weeks since the last AfD. In all good faith, wiki has no deadline for improvement... just the hope that it happens. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep - clearly notable by the millions of google hits. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not reason to delete. Unionsoap (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You even linked to WP:ATA. :( - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be pointed out that Airi & Eiri easily pass Wikipedia's definition of "notability" for their subject area: WP:PORNBIO. Specifically, "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature". Out of the vast number of AVs (a 1994 report showed 14,000 adult videos being made annually in Japan.[28]), Airi & Meiri had top-sellers in the cosplay genre over the past two years-- the only two for which I see sales records.[29], [30] Cosplay Channel shows that their video If Airi & Meiri Were My Girlfriends (もしもあいりめいりが僕のふたご彼女だったら…, Moshimo Airi Meiri ga boku no futago kanojo dattara...) (January 2006) was the 8th top-seller for the year of 2008,[31] and, over three years after the video's initial release, it remains the 5th best seller in the genre for the month of March 2009.[32]

Also, the removal of the text and sourcing which shows their "notability" is inappropriate and damaging to the article. The reasons given for the removal appear to be a misinterpretation of WP:GRAPEVINE. However, These sources are used only for information on their professional careers, not for contentious biographical information. These are reliable sources for information on professional details such as interviews,[33] video releases, musical recordings,[34] public appearances,[35] and to show that they were mentioned multiple times in a column[36],[37] by Kemuta Ōtsubo a published authority in the field of AV.[38] It shows that Airi performed under the name Risako Nakahara[39], [40], and under that name released at least 30 videos,[41] in an industry in which the average career is about a year with 5-10 videos produced.[42] This is all public, professional career information, not biographical detail, and its removal is inappropriate and harmful to the article by making the subjects appear to be less "notable" than they are, and by preventing editors from working to improve the article. Gutting the article of all information except the release of a single and one public appearance makes it look laughable. The only reason I can see for this is the make it look easier to delete, and I believe this is grossly inappropriate during an AfD. Dekkappai (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being one of the higher sellers in a sales category on a catalog site is not a unique contribution, nor is starting it a trend, nor is it a groundbreaking feature film.

Did you have a reliable source that described them as best-sellers? This is the third time those same links have been linked on this AFD. Repetition has not turned catalog sites and offhand mentions into reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those not intentionally missing the point: a blockbuster "as applied to film or theater, denotes a very popular and/or successful production." Three years as a top-seller and still in the #5 spot just might constitute a "very popular and/or successful production" within the genre. As for the uncivil misrepresentations of my statements above, I hope that the redaction works both ways this time, and not just to remove cited material from the article and complaints against that at the AfD... Dekkappai (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who called it a blockbuster? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:05, 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 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Affinity Konar

First-time author whose book has been published but is not garnering much attention or high sales fails WP:CREATIVE. JaGa^talk 04:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - Author has just published her first book on March 8, 2009, so I support waiting for a few months before we decide on this new author's notability; rather than delete now just to create the article later. Unionsoap (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dunno. "They may be notable later" doesn't seem like a valid reason. Shouldn't a person prove their notability before they're given an entry in Wikipedia? --JaGa^talk 06:56, 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 00:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 01:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11). The praise by Ben Marcus mentioned in the article is what is called a blurb in the industry and does not confer any sort of notability. Combined with the lack of press attention this amounts to nothing more than an attempt at advertising the book. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Sonin

Don't see anything here to pass WP:CREATIVE. Note that the external links are about his father, David Sonin. JaGa^talk 03:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per notability issue, which poses problems for verifiability. I don't think every person who interviews Sarah Silverman or is working on a comedy stage show meets WP:N. --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, fails all four points on WP:CREATIVE This and David Sonin created by SPA almost-instinct 09:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any verifiable significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unionsoap (talk) 14:43, 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 Transwiki. Transwiki MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GPS in the Earthmoving Industry

Essay-formatted "paper". Completely the wrong tone and premise for a Wikipedia article. Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps this nomination is too hasty. While it is true that the article is an unencyclopedic essay format, that can be changed, as can the tone. My question for Ironholds would be, is this a topic that does not merit inclusion on Wikipedia because it is not notable? Also, keep in mind that the article is marked as "under construction," and it was created less than one day ago. I'm going to wait until further edits are made to the article to make a decision about whether or not this article merits deletion, and I would suggest you do the same. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikibooks. Too much an essay / original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:27, 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 00:01, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Carter (politician)

Fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Acebulf (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - WP:POLITICIAN qualifies "Major figures in national or first-level sub-national political races." 8.8% voter support for United States representative and 6.4% and 9.3% for governor of Maine doesn't seem to be a minor figure. A perennial losing candidate, but not a non-notable one. -kotra (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Jonathan Carter (politician) is an important figure in the early history of the Green Party of the United States and the Maine Green Independent Party. Carter's campaigns marked a major point in the green movement when many figures moved away from pure activism towards electoral politics. His 6.4% and 9.3% for governor of Maine are notable totals for third party candidates. The Carter campaigns also helped develop the Maine Green Independent Party to being the nations largest third party by percentage of the electorate with 31,676 registrants in the state comprising 3.19% of the electorate [43]. Highground79 (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Kotra. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:19, 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 10:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Cohen

Drummer for a non-notable band. Doesn't seem to meet our criteria for inclusion. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Only claims are totally unsourced and unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure that because the references given (while I admit they're very sloppy) are "totally unsourced and unverifiable." One even gives a page number. Just because it doesn't have a link, doesn't mean it's unverifiable. If that were the case, we'd have no use for libraries anymore. I'll look to see if I can verify these claims online but I would have to assume good faith that the author didn't completely fabricate these references when adding my say either way. I'll wait until I have more info. OlYeller^Talktome 04:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article already failed a speedy A7. I don't want to come off as rude but maybe we should let the AfD run its course before trying to see if another admin will overturn the declined speedy decision. I've seen you around and respect you (TenPoundHammer) but I think you're being a little bit hasty on this one. OlYeller^Talktome 04:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did 3 things: attempted to find online version of the mentioned magazines to verify the features, attempted to find other articles about the subject, and attempted to see if the mentioned magazines were reliable. I found no information to suggest that the subject had been featured in any of the magazines (but that still doesn't mean he wasn't). I found no other articles that do anything but mention that the subject was in the band being featured in the article (implied that the band was notable but not him individually). I find that Modern Drummer Magazine is not a reliable source, Steppin Out Magazine is not a reliable source, and that East Coast Rocker may or may not be a reliable source (no official website but my search does show that it exists. In my opinion two of the three magazines that the subject may or may not be in, aren't reliable. In short, the best case scenario is that he's in all 3 magazines and 2 aren't reliable meaning that there's 1 reliable source to prove notability. Worst case scenario, the subject isn't in any of the magazines and none of them are reliable. Either way, I'd say a deletion is in order. OlYeller^Talktome 04:47, 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 21:16, 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 01:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nobody cares about you or your garage band. Lack of third-party, reliable sources that discuss the topic in more than a trivial manner. Fails WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:DONTBITE—Preceding unsigned comment added by OlYeller21 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AbsoluteTelnet

AfDs for this article:

Per consensus at DRV this article has been relisted to discuss whether the new sources put forward in the DRV overcome the reasons for deleting in the previous AFD. As this is a procedural nomination by the closing admin I have no opinion in this matter, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proffered sources are:
- Centrify article on Single Sign On with Absolutetelnet
- Applications that implement IDNA on verisign.com
- Unicode enabled applications resource page on unicode.org
- AbsoluteTelnet known interoperable with Quest OpenSSH with SingleSignOn
- AbsoluteTelnet single sign on using SecureLogin on novel.com
- CNET (4.5 stars with 37 votes and over half a million downloads) must count for something
- List of programs that use GNU Fribidi on fribidi.org
- AbsoluteTelnet article on isp-planet.com
- These also print sources were alsoi submitted during the AFD
  - (page 622 "Absolute Telnet").
  - Windows XP Power Productivity found via google book search
  - The Web Wizard's guide to Perl and CGI
  - Novell NetWare 6.5 Administrator's Handbook
  - --Brian Pence (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability threshold met with additional sources, however it should be re-written to reflect sources and notability reasons. If this not done by the time this AfD is closed then speedy delete, as no claim of notability is made in the article.--Cerejota (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources mentioned above, especially the number of downloads, which indicates a notable user base. Also keep per the spirit of the Notability policies for articles on open-source software discussion on WikiEN-l. Dandv (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is commercial software, not free software.--Cerejota (talk) 14:22, 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article with these and other references. Any comment?--Brian Pence (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient reliable sources are now listed. Deleting this article would not improve Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv (talk • contribs) 07:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think the ISP Planet article is the best source as it is actually a full article about the product. I am not too keen on the non-RS reviews. I remain worried about the potential COI with Brian writing about his own product. I would like to see him get it to a basic state which acceptable and then leave it for others to expand on. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:40, 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. MBisanz ^talk 10:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMS India

Might, just possibly, be notable, but with no third-party sources presented, it's hard to establish that. Plus, it's written in the first person by IMSlearning, whose only contribution this is. Hmm... Biruitorul ^Talk 15:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But only if secondary sources can be cited. The company seems to be notable enough. Borock (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may Keep - 30% - need more sources to confirm. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 00:24, 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 01:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a "big established name in its field" http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshowarchive.cms?msid=2577998 so it might, just possibly, be notable. Hilary T (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Google News shows articles about this company's different branches throughout India. User:Hilary T did good. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:34, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CallWave, Inc.

Article presents no verifiable notability and has been removed previously (under this name and CallWave) at least 4 times as spam. Calltech (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable in the usual way. WilyD 17:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That they've issued press releases? Powers ^T 18:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That the New York Times, a notable, reliable, third party publication with global reach chooses to publish articles about them. Try sending a press release to the New York Times, see if they publish it. WilyD 20:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not claiming to be notable, either, though. Have these press releases appeared in the physical paper, or just online? Powers ^T 03:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure. This would've been on physical paper, as would this and this, for instance (many other examples are easy to locate), but it shouldn't matter anyhow. Wily D 13:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Appearance of a review in a paper-and-ink publication no longer holds the weight it might once have, given the slow demise of print publications and their replacement by online entities. It'd be anachronistic and ironic for Wiki editors to give undo influence to reportage in print publications. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 19:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well that depends on what you consider "undue", doesn't it? My point was that the NYT could easily reprint hundreds of press releases each day by placing them online. Doing so requires very little effort and no independent reporting at all. Printing them in the newspaper isn't much more difficult, but does require some sort of selection criteria to be applied due to limited print space. That, at least, would begin to show that a major news organization found the company notable. Online, though, about all it means is that they have a stock ticker symbol and a press agent. Powers ^T 17:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        In any event, as I note above, slightly less big deal, but still big deal publications (such as the San Francisco Chronicle) have stamped articles about the company onto dead trees. Wily D 18:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - SF article is a little iffy. Its about a stock upgrade from the underwriter of CallWav (which he fully discloses) and he also discloses he is under contract with the company. Not a neutral and reliable source. Ironically and practically, the stock tanked right after the "upgrade" (which supports the reliability argument) and is now trading under a buck (Yahoo Finance, note March 2005, the date of the article). You may argue that just being mentioned in the SF Chronicle is sufficient, but I believe the quality, accuracy and neutrality of the content needs to be considered. The other articles you cited appear to be fluff that fits the pattern Jim Ward found. Most of these articles rely heavily on company provided information. If being listed on an exchange is sufficient notability, then they are notable. The most notable reference I found while researching this company comes from Forbes The 'Freemium' Fallacy, 12-2008. Here Gene Marks, the author, disparages companies such as CallWav who build business models that try to provide "Free" products and services (hoping to gain popularity and selling out to bigger companies who bundle them with their services). In this article, he cites CallWav's lack of success and its current attempts to reinvent itself. When combined with CallWav's deteriorating financial situation (selling off assets and declining revenue and asset value - again per Yahoo Finance, News [44] [45]) and with its alleged billing schemes, its hard to see what is so notable about this company (unless these negatives define its notability). When you read CallWave, Inc. (as previously written and even currently), you would not learn any of this. But that's because it is written by someone who does not have a neutral perspective and appears intent on promoting the company and its products. This SPA also authored another CallWav article FUZE Meeting which describes their new product. This article was recently removed by AFD. This author proceeded to relist even after his deletion challenge was unanomously rejected (The closing Admin advised against relisting, although one user did say he would not be opposed). Calltech (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Callwave distributes press releases through Business Wire which are picked up and listed in the Business section of the NYT, among scores of other publications. That's hardly the same as independent journalism or analysis on the company. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 08:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Using Google search and pointers to media coverage on Callwave's own web site, I haven't been able to locate any reportage that's not traceable to a company press release. Most article edits are by an SPA who appears to be conflicted given that his or her user page is a blatant advertisement for a Callwave product. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 08:57, 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 01:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With all due respect to Powers's ingenious arguments about the New York Times, the NYT is still patently, obviously and, I think, undeniably, a reliable source.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About what in the world are you talking? I never claimed the NYT was unreliable. I claimed that the simple republishing of press releases online is not evidence of notability. Powers ^T 22:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That claim strong conflicts with WP:N though, which says if an independent publisher chooses to publish material about you, you're notable. If the New York Times published my memoirs, I'd be notable, even though I wrote the memoirs. WilyD 15:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - WP:N does not claim that if an independent publisher chooses to publish material about a topic, it's notable. Rather, it says that publication of such material is one criterion for notability. It must be viewed holistically with other requirements. Applicable to this discussion, it says:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and […] is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

So, a mention in the NYT unto itself does not meet the bar set by WP:N, irrespective of whether it's in print or online. If it did, anyone and anything ever covered by mainstream media could legitimately be the topic of an article. (Can we agree that such a policy would set the bar much too low?) Instead, it's up to editors to evaluate the whole article to see if it satisfies the entire spirit of WP:N. We ought to be talking about significance of the subject and its news coverage, rather than that of the NYT. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 16:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about mentions, though, but articles about the company. Mentions may or may not be trivial, but articles are nontrivial. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wily D 16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC); this signing note was added by Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 18:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

- - - (edit conflict) Take another look at the general notability guideline. It requires "significant coverage" that is "independent of the subject". In fact, it specifically excludes press releases because they are not independent. Publishing something the length of a memoir is different; it may indicate notability simply because it's so rare for a news organization to do so. Aside from that extreme example, though, the notability conferred by reliable news organizations is conferred by virtue of the organization choosing to spend time and money researching the topic and writing the content, not by virtue of simply choosing to reprint someone else's work. Powers ^T 16:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you issue a press release, that's not independent publishing. But when it's picked up and republished independently, then it's independent. Wily D 16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Your reading of that provision is not supported by the longstanding consensus on the issue. Take a look at the sixth footnote: "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." Just because it appears on the NYT web site does not mean it's notable. Powers ^T 17:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It is actually quite clear in WP guidelines WP:ORG that press releases, no matter who picks them up or publishes them, are not independent analysis and thus criteria for establishing notability. Here's the exact quote:
        The "secondary sources" in the criterion include ... except for the following: Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.
        
        Clearly the NYT falls into the "other people" category. Back to the practicality of this discussion, WP also makes it clear that just being a listed company does not necessarily mean you are notable. The NYT is simply picking up paid press releases from the company (like it does for every other "listed" company) and prints it. It also puts a disclaimer at the bottom saying this was provided by the company. There is absolutely no independent analysis and research when you are simply providing readers with copies of company generated PR materials. Otherwise, every listed company would be notable. Calltech (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable company based on reputable newspaper reports and significant web presence. |→ Spaully^₪† 10:18, 1 April 2009 (GMT)
Comment. User:FabulosWorld, the primary contributor to this article and its corresponding article FUZE Meeting, has been blocked indefinitely for COI (WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:FabulosWorld) and for sock puppetry (WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/FabulosWorld/Archive) while engaging in edits and arguments on these article talk pages and during the AFD and appeal discussions. This user used multiple identities to hide his association with this company and to create the appearance of support when attacking other users who disagreed with him. I understand there is a disagreement here about the notability of this company, but given the fact that the content of both of these articles came from a deceptive user, I again recommend that BOTH of these articles be deleted and Salted as proposed by Jim Ward. Calltech (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The decision as to whether or not the article should remain should be based on the merits (or otherwise) of the article, not of its contributors! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 13:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep (see rationale for change below) - based on the fact (AFAICS) that the only "independent" coverage thus far seems to be the NYT reprint of the press release. This is not truly independent, and I believe that it doesn't indicate any real notability, mostly for the arguments already expounded by others above. If real, independent, non-trivial sources can be found, then I would be prepared to alter my "vote". Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 13:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a meandering discussion, but The San Francisco Chronicle and a few other publications have written stories about them as well - links are studded through-out this discussion. WilyD 19:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, yes, I didn't spot those links. Whilst the SF discussion of the share price isn't particularly compelling, the other two articles (Kansas and Chicago) look like they could indeed be non-trivial coverage. It's a little difficult to know exactly how much depth they go into without paying for the articles, hence I've changed my "vote" to "weak keep". Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:00, 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 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Najm Rehan

Appears to be non-notable. Can't find any web evidence of this person, the films or the company other than the official site at deccanbiz. The site says that they, BUQ, is a major force in that part of the city. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any third-party references. The movies he's directed are not notable and due to the lack of references, the information cannot be verified. Clearly, the article should be deleted. Anti venin 14:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. ←Spidern → 15:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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 01:19, 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 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maori participation in sport and leisure

Oh dear. Methinks some lecturer has told their students to post their essays on Wikipedia (see also Maori outdoor education. This is an essay, not only containing original research and expressing a point of view, but suggesting solutions. I can't see such a topic being rewritten in an encyclopedic manner. Some sourced material might be useful in either Māori or Sport in New Zealand dramatic (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sports and leisure are good for everyone. However this does not seem like a notable topic for a WP article. Some of the sources and information could be used in other articles on the Maori. Redddogg (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it would be suitable for Wikibooks, then transwiki and delete. Otherwise, just delete. It's a good effort but Wikipedia isn't the right place for it.-gadfium 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete personal essay. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:01, 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 01:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think its interesting that the creator of the article has not edited since the article was created. Though its only been 4 or 5 days (that doesnt say much) but it seems written as a personal essay and that the account was made primarly for this articles purpose, If we can Id like to hear from the creator of the article and perhaps provide some feedback tothem about the article Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive left a message 4 days ago on the Leahv' s talk page but there still doesnt seem to be any activity in this persons account since the day the article was createdOttawa4ever (talk) 21:40, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You Ain't Gonna Need It

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/You Ain't Gonna Need It

Nom as all Original Research. It's a generic phrase that someone wrote from the point of view of a programmer. Two references are a wiki and a personal webpage. Habanero-tan (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. One of the guiding principles of extreme programming and test-driven development. Descriptions of this concept can be found in almost any book on either of the two above subjects. I'd recommend, for example, Scott Ambler & Ron Jeffries Agile Modelling J. Wiley & Sons ISBN 0471202827, or Kent Beck Extreme programming explained. Also see [46] JulesH (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, had to leave quickly earlier and didn't finish the above comment. Beck's book is published by Addison Wesley, ISBN 0201616416. See also Hunt, Thomas (2003). "The trip-packing dilemma [agile software development]". Software. 20 (3). IEEE: 106–107., a peer-reviewed article about this topic. Another peer-reviewed paper is here: Barry Boehm (2002). "Get ready for agile methods, with care" (PDF). Computer. 35 (1). IEEE: 64–69.. The question of how valid the YAGNI principle is is an important research issue in software development methodology at the moment. There's plenty of scope for an article here. JulesH (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With comment to the existing references on the topic; the personal page is that of Ron Jeffries, an acknowledged authority on agile software engineering and the author of a substantial number of books on the topic. Per WP:SPS, his site is reliable for this topic. As for the use of WardsWiki as a source, this is an interesting case because while wikis are not usually accepted as reliable sources, this particular wiki also serves as the home page and public notepad of the original inventors of extreme programming, and is considered the most relevant primary source for information about XP history. I further note that an additional source, distinct from the ones I mention above, has already been added to the article since it was nominated. JulesH (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a noteworthy principle from extreme programming. See any of these sources: [47]. I did some cleanup, but I admit that the "Balancing Concerns" section is a bit long-winded and reads like a personal essay. Also, it may not be a bad idea to describe Ron Jeffries' relevance within the article. ←Spidern→ 17:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on responses to it that I've read, the balancing concerns section is probably addressed in substantial detail by the first of the scholarly articles I list above. Unfortunately, I'm not an IEEE subscriber so can't access the full text of the article, but if you are you may be able to find some useful stuff to fix that section with in that article. JulesH (talk) 21:50, 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 01:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per JulesH. This is an important, notable, and widely known concept in programming. If there are sourcing or original research problems in the article, they should be fixed instead of deleting the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Extreme Programming by application of the principle itself - we don't need a separate article for this phrase. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Such a merge would be inappropriate, as the principle is also used in most forms of test driven development, which is used by a number of methodologies apart from XP, including a large proportion of teams practising Scrum (development), etc. JulesH (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I visited the page today because I wanted to cite wp on the concept of YAGNI. It's an important meme that will develop over time, so I expect the article to grow. And it's good to be able to point people at a succinct article on what it means. Lunkwill (talk) 20:04, 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 10:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bre Makedonče

Notability, if any, not yet established. Probably useless junk. ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 19:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: The AfD tag was removed after a long list of articles were nominated by another user. I have gone through the entire list and believe this is the only one which could possibly not meet wikipedia standards. AfD tag has been restored to allow further discussion. JamesBurns (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is nothing more than a lyric sheet which fails to establish why it is notable. Since the song in question is not a national anthem, and was sung by only a small group of people, the importance of it is yet to be demonstrated. JamesBurns (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - There's a reference to this title in footnote #32 here, but I don't know enough German to really understand it. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried Google translate but it turned it into a particularly impenetrable variety of that awful Yoda-speak it usually regurgitates for German, so I translated it the hard way. It's not all that helpful, I'm afraid—a footnote that refers to a paper publication by someone called Vladimir Čupeski which is apparently about this song, but it mentions several other paper publications by other people that don't appear to be about the song at all. The paper publication by Vladimir Čupeski would appear to be written in Macedonian and not available online, which I think leaves us completely scuppered.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, non notable, no content. Deletion Mutation 15:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:32, 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 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject (which is everybody because the subject is not notable). Untick (talk) 02:41, 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 Okay kids, we've had our fun. April Fools' Day is over. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth

If you came here because you are from Earth, 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}}.

See my vote below for proof of hoax. John Bulten (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last few years have seen great progress in the field of Astronomy; in particular more planets are being discovered all the time. One obvious corollary of this is that just as we have notability criteria for people, we are going to need some criteria for notable planets - they really can't all have articles. So to start the ball rolling and hopefully set a non-contentious precedent I'd like to propose the Earth for deletion for the following reasons:

Our principal competitor only gives it a two word microstub entry: "mostly harmless".
None of our major telescopes have actually reported seeing it.

I'm certain the Hubble could see at least part of it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not originally; Hubble Space Telescope#Flawed mirror. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it can take pictures of the Earth, where are the pictures? There are none. Please take your OR elsewhere! Tx!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As planets of its type go it's really extraordinarily average (gravity = 1.000, year = 1.000 years). Ϣere SpielChequers 01:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these filthy... Earth-ians and their filthy... come on, Treelo, help me here, I'm trying to make some sort of contrived Invader Zim reference. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)— TenPoundHammer (talk • contribs) is a filthy deletionist so of course he'd say that, harrumph.[reply]

Comment Um... my squeedly-spooch? I'm all out. treelo _radda 02:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to have been written entirely by the inhabitants themselves. Relies solely on self-published sources. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cos it survived the last AfD lol - filelake shoe 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of sources independent of the subject matter. All sources of this planet come from earth, so those sources cannot be reliable. Tavix (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sephiroth and Delete using "Meteor". MuZemike being orange^{Or is Orangemike being MuZe?} 01:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obliterate with lasers - well, why not? Alternative: send in the Martians. the_ed17 : Chat 02:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt per above. TheAE talk/sign 02:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:IDONTLIKEIT - it's original research. The earth is flat [48]. Royal broil 02:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Come on, whoever heard of Earth? Totally made up and maybe even demolished to make way for a hyperspace bypass being in that end of the Sector 9 plural zone. treelo _radda 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard Irk is a much better place anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a "Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator". It's blocking our view of Venus. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. --User:Marvin the Martian 27:27, 1 April 2009 (MT)
Delete per Tavix. Can't we find a single independent source? This whole article reeks of WP:COI. -kotra (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Earth rulz, U deleshunist Nazis nede to go git layd and stop attakin legitimit articals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Ritzman (talk • contribs) — Ron Ritzman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete New Jersey, keep rest It smells funny. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too young for admin tools. -kotra (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nice fjords --Slartibartfast : Chat 03:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't drive a Fjord. I drive a Chjevy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to the fjords is unverifiable, though; some sources place them in Scandinavia, others in Africa. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too many planets already Chzz : Chat 03:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge with dwarf planet. Was going to recommend this AFD myself. I don't see any sourcing in favor of this thing being notable, but note C. S. Lewis on its nonnotability (emphasis added): Why does Dr Waddington concentrate on ... a temporary phase of organic existence in one planet? This is 'geocentric' .... surely we should notice what Nature is doing as a whole; and Nature as a whole, I understand, is working steadily and irreversibly towards the final extinction of all life in every part of the universe, so that Dr Waddington's ethics, stripped of their unaccountable bias towards such a parochial affair as tellurian biology, would leave murder and suicide our only duties. JJB 04:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge with Soil. Unnecessary synonymous article. Deor (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arda, since this is a content fork of Arda. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a bunch of Randians and homeopaths. Zagalejo^^^ 06:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no third party sources: all references are from citizens of said planet. Seems to hint at OR as well. _spǝǝp ^spɹoʍ3100ʇnɯɐɥɐq 06:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only the external links. Especially the one at the top that I put there yesterday. In fact, we might as well write an entire article about it. Themfromspam (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 300 (film). This topic was mentioned in the movie and by WP:PRESERVE we should save this information. The film's article would be at a loss without this valuable background material. ThemfromSPARTA!!! (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete where we are from this planet isn't notable at all. Themfromspace (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW (no way this will be deleted and even if it is a joke, it will be restored promptly). Anyway, passes WP:N and WP:V among pretty much everything. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, Snowball Earth! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an iota of humor? Good lord. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Iota? Isn't that the one-seater "personal car" introduced by Toyota some years back? Regarding the WP:SNOW, keep in mind there's plenty of snow on earth. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it. It's supposed to be ironically funny to have a "serious" keep from me even in an obvious joke nomination... ;) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is clearly biased towards Earthlings; we must maintain NPOV when it comes to other life forms in the universe, like Kathy Lee Gifford, Star Jones, David Haselhoff, and that race of mucus people in the Mucinex commercial. Besides, Melmac and Ork are better planets anyways, so there :-P! Nate • (chatter) 07:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mostly harmless.--Scott Mac (Doc) 07:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note to closing mod - please ignore the above comment, per WP:HARMLESS. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve references - I can't find a single verifyable reliable source which was not written by someone involved in the project. I mean, come on, if it's nearly as important as the article is making it out to be, there has to be something.... ...anything... which was published somewhere else and makes note of it. We have NPOV and COI problems up the wazoo on this article. Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Demolish due to urgent need for bypass. -- LondonStatto (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The "mostly harmless" argument is often cited by deletionists as insufficient. I'm generally an inclusionist, so I say "harmless" is sufficient grounds to keep, and "mostly harmless" is even more notable than "harmless". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the nominator states that '[o]ur principal competitor only gives it a two word microstub entry: "mostly harmless"', he has clearly failed in the requirements of WP:BEFORE in only examining the older edition of the Guide; the new revised edition is much expanded, including a section of tips for travelers (get a job as a New York taxi driver; it doesn't matter if you don't look human). JulesH (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per MuZemike, but delete using "Supernova". — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose usage of Super Nova. It is incapable of deleting a group of three Materia-infused humans let alone an entire planet. MuZemike being orange^{Or is Orangemike being MuZe?} 18:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent sources. – ABCD : Chat 08:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy using one of the methods at http://qntm.org/?destroy — Dandv (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Send for the Vogons. Although what the Martians will attack is unknown. Plus there's some HUUUUUUGE Wp:COI issues here as well - all contributors and their sources are from Earth. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 08:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the comment below, This article will be deleted. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there's also huge WP:COI issues as well (none of the contributors or sources come from anywhere other than Earth). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EX-TER-MIN-ATE -- Dalek Parton 99:57 (DT)
Delete The Earth is a lie. yngvarr _{squeedly spooch} 10:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is typical of Wikipedia's systemic bias in favour of humans. I mean, I'm aware that this article has been a labour of love for devoted fans of the source media, but these days, planets are ten a penny. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, these days they're only 8 a penny.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move - It's getting too hot where it is.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see; A World Out of Time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cleanup. Chelseaboy (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this source talks about Earth and is supposedly at least inspired by a non-earth being. Though the article contradicts much of what the source says and should be rewritten accordingly. Dendlai (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn planetcruft *Dan T.* (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as an example to others. Its not too remote to make an effective demonstration. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vyvyan Basterd - OR, no independant sources at all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per WP:JUSTAVOTE. Redfarmer (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Earth, delete the humans before they kill the place. See also; The World Without Us. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was going to be deleted anyway to make way for the hyperspace bypass. Æe tlr Cre ejl 15:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nuke the planet from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Clearly, that dirt clod out in space is worthless junk anyway, right? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but since the page is protected, who can add a template to it?--Jimmy xu wrk (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blow it up with the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's my home, it's very pretty at the right time of day on the surface, and it's where I keep all of my stuff. Why would you want to blow this place up? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm sure we can all agree that this Earth doesn't inherit notability from the Sun, so it makes much more sense as a subsection. --Gwern (contribs) 15:47 1 April 2009 (GMT)
Speedy delete - The vast majority of editors have a huge COI. Neurolysis : Chat 15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Huh, I'm going to guess the smaller minority is some Vulcans watching for when we achieve warp speed stellar travel. treelo _{the cake is a lie} 15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think some Irkens... oh, never mind. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Everyone likes snow.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not me or my otters. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After early February 2009, I'd have to agree. My friend Rachel H would have to agree - it caused her to break her wrist. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipidea has clear guide lines about mostly harmless things: WP:MOSTLYHARMLESS: Just because having an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should be kept and goes on to say: "it does not do any harm" claim, and its rebuttal, is at the center of the philosophical editing debate of inclusionism versus deletionism. For more information and arguments, see the Meta articles Inclusionism and Deletionism.. Deep thoughts. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy nuke
Promote Mars to Featured Planet
Neutral We Vulcans don't really care one way or the other what you do with the little blue marble. — Ched : Yes? : © 16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy. It is obstructing my view of Venus. Where's the kaboom? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep; this article is informative about the geological, chemical, and biological makeup of Earth, something that most Earthlings are underinformed about. Why don't we just delete the main page? Tezkag72 (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, hoax: If you look up the so-called "independent reliable sources" adduced by the inclusionistas, such as Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Vulcans, Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius, Arda, Ork, Melmac, etc., you will find they have each been perpetrated by earthlings as attempts to create apparent "independent" sources. Widespread as the hoax may be, WP is above it all when it comes to this kind of chest-pounding attempts at conferring notability. WP:SNOW already so we can get on with WP:DRV. John Bulten (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking previous comment as obvious sock and duplicate vote of another user, above. JJB 17:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  - Quit WP:STALKing me. John Bulten (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, that's rich. I'm stalking you, you say? I'm in the middle of writing an WP:RFCU right now, you want me to upgrade it to WP:RFC/U? JJB 17:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep - The Wikimedia Servers are located there. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've been mulling a career change anyway. -God ^{{damn those • buses}} 17:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not all our sources come from there — see the attached picture, based on a photograph taken well away from Earth. Nyttend (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely, it says "United States" - ergo making it an Earth-based source. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sun. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - written by its own inhabitants, reeks of conflict of interest if you ask me. Get rid of it! Giant Snowman 18:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this planet has four memebers of the Green Lantern Corps already. Libertyernie2 (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per obvious WP:COI; sources cited are all written by persons living on that planet. Mandsford (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak comment I don't mean to go WP:OTHERSTUFF, but we just AfD Pluto a while back... if it doesn't meet inclusion as a planet, I don't know how we could keep this one as well. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaints and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now. You say you've never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh for heaven's sake mankind, it's only four light years away you know. I'm sorry but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs that's your look out. Apathetic bloody planet—I've no sympathy at all. --Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (poetry) 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am concerned that this debate is getting way too civil and that there is too much good faith being demonstrated. Too many people are behaving reasonably, calmly and courteously; and there is an ominous trend of editors showing consideration and respect for each other. I am concerned by the number of appropriate comments.... Mandsford (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DAMMIT - Mandsford, WTF are you talking about, you ignorant buffoon!!! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I feel much better now. Mandsford (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely there is a certain notability when one considers the number of gods that claim to have created the place? Obviously these claims are not acceptable in themselves as evidence (COI and OR), but the number is quite large. Of course, there might be sockpuppetry or deopuppetry going on, and the number of actual gods involved may be far less. Peridon (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Elephant They carry it, don't they? Peridon (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - it's turtles all the way down that supports Earth. Although I don't think anyone knows what the bottom turtle stands on. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naah - turtles don't stand on turtles, they swim... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down#In_culture Peridon (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conquer and replace with parking-structure planet. -Sketchmoose^{(sandwiches/rubber piggy)} 20:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has an important non-recurring role in Hitchhiker's Guide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge (smash-merge) with Mars, Sun, and Black hole, in that order. Dinoguy1000 : Chat 20:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simple as that FMAFan1990 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move this page to Wikipedia:Request for death/Mankind -- iMatthew : Chat 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Simpsons takes place on this planet, and who could possibly deny that that makes the subject notable? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do nothing I understand, according to a reliable source, that its inhabitants are in the process of deleting it, so all we have to do is wait (anyone interested in filling out a stub or two in the meantime?) & the problem will take care of itself. But don't worry, maybe this will pass on its 9th nomination. -- llywrch (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why? Global warming. We are constantly screwing ourselves over by burying the planet under our crap. We don't need this planet any more. Now, excuse me as I get into my spaceship and escape the poison gases. Marlith (Talk) 22:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When free oxygen first appeared on Earth, it was a destructive pollutant to much of the life. All the current inhabitants are doing is preparing the place for the next lot - whatever they will be. I would say I'd prefer not to know, but as I won't anyway, I would. Peridon (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, merge and redirect to Class M planet. --Rory096 22:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fancruft from such series as Indiana Jones, Star Trek, and Gundam. --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Hey, I found this interesting documentary short about why Wikipedia is harmful to education and freedom. I think some of you might be interested in it. It can be found at Why Wikipedia Must be Banned Marlith (Talk) 02:45, 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 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Handzup Radio

Internet radio station. Now closed, Was it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-notable former radio station Bacchus87 (talk) 17:25, 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 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to establish notability with reliable references. Spiesr (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no source provided for its claims of notability, and a look through search results doesn't suggest there are enough. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

The result was: While I appreciate the humor, I really don't think it is a great idea if we have a highly trafficked page up at AfD, even on April 1. However, the real result: Speedy cabal delete and recreation with POVNo one ever saw that (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare : Chat 01:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools' Day

AfDs for this article:

Entirely non-notable holiday, fails WP:MADEUP. Also seems to be a heavy target of vandalism and pranking (wink wink). Suggest deletion and salting to help stem any vandalism related to this so-called holiday. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least 'till April 2nd. *smile* — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what he said. The Pink Phink : Text me! 01:13, 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 02:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anja Coleby

fails WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect minor roles only; rd to the father, Robert_Coleby#Personal_life. JJL (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article seems to exist because of relations only. In any case, fails WP:CREATIVE. Jd027 (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failing WP:CREATIVE. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 04:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject does not meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guidelines at the present time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:47, 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 10:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Circle of Environmental Engineers at Poznań University of Technology

With all due respect to Polish HVAC specialists, I don't quite think this meets our notability requirements. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:27, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete information easily covered in its own website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs) 00:36, 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 09:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piagentini

No notability, personal research for a family which is like thousands other ones; a genealogical tree has been self-enquiried by RiccardoP1983.[49], also autor of the italian version.

Are they related to each other? Is this more an article about a name or about a family?
What about this embleme? They are not in the italian libro d'Oro
Last but not least;What did they? They just "merited the highest consideration and esteem". Absolutely not enough.

--Invitamia (talk) 00:11, 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 00:00, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there's an article such as Names in the Russian Empire, Soviet Union and CIS countries for Italian names, I might say redirect to that. But short of that, I see no reason to think this particular surname merits an article, especially since the article mentions no one with that name that's notable enough for their own article. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 23:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Invitamia (talk) 16:58, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facing the Wishes

Fails WP:BK - recreation of article recently deleted via PROD - it doesn't appear to meet any of our criteria, however nice an idea it was. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTE. No relevant Google book results, and very few relevant Google search results that are not Wikipedia clones. ←Spidern → 15:43, 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 00:11, 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 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen T. Owens

The CV of a lawyer with some big cases. No sources, but even examining good sources [50] there's nothing encyclopedic here as far as I can see. Contested prod by IP. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete (per last comment) The guy's all over Google! He's certainly notable. The article does read like a CV though and needs to be cleaned up, possibly to a stub. He seems to be an extremely well known lawyer, and is certainly notable. Antivenin 14:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google counting, even when done properly is no substitute for an argument based on reason and sources. Why do you say he's notable, and what source are you using for evidence.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, okay. I'll explain why he's notable. He's referenced in the LA Times, on a famous case. He worked on a case featured on PrimeTime Live which was also talked about in numerous journals. He received the John Minor Wisdom Award for Professionalism and Public Service and the President's Pro Bono Service Award. That's why I think he's notable. Of course, I might very well be wrong. Antivenin 14:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any case that hits the news, might feature a quote from a lawyer - if they profiled him, that'd be different. he worked on a case that was talked about? But was he talked about? The awards might make him notable - but then, are they particularly notable? I don't know that one.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - After reviewing this further, I have my doubts too. Because the awards were given to him so far back, I can't find any valid references to the award, besides on profiles he's created himself. So as of now it fails WP:V. Anti venin 14:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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 00:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find any third-party, reliable sources that discuss the topic in a non-trivial way. -Atmoz (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very notable. He is an award winning trial lawyer with many articles written about him. He is referred to in many more articles. Esasus (talk) 22:33, 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. Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Simmans

AfDs for this article:

This has been deleted twice through AfD. The second time it was userfied, but then moved back into mainspace. I'm not sure whether it is notable or not, but I think it worth discussing. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizzo

The article is also a disgraceful mess - I've removed some dreadful BLP violations already, but if this is to be kept it needs TLC. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, that was in my user space. Can't see any discussion on my talk page to move it back to article space, and it looks like I deleted the redirect during a clean up of my user space in April 08. I can't turn up anything on the strip by R. C. Harvey, which makes me ponder. I've exhausted all my avenues, so delete, and apologies for dropping the ball on this one. Hiding T 19:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 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 00:09, 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, the debate below covers all the main points, no objections have been raised. Hiding T 09:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taide-design

Article about magazine which has an advertising tone and fails WP:CRYSTAL. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the first paragraph is a direct copy-and-paste of the source, looks like a copyvio? Other than that, I say delete as Google only comes up with one link for this. Also, it reads like an advert. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotion for a new magazine that hasn't even published its first issue yet. JIP | Talk 09:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The magazine may very well become notable, but unless there's significant media coverage lurking in Finnish print media, it doesn't seem to be notable enough yet (if anyone wishes to search further, the magazine's actual name appears to be "Taide & Design"). -kotra (talk) 02:28, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 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 Merge with Stick Sports Marasmusine (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stick Baseball

Non-notable website game, does not pass WP:WEB. MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find nothing to support a claim to notability for this webgame/website. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references, not needed. DinajGao (talk) 12:09, 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 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stickball. JJL (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and Redirect to Stick Sports: ~~Redirect to Stickball.~~ I agree with Matt that it's non-notable. No assertion that it notable and no references. A quick Google search turns up nothing important. It's about a specific computer game from Stick Sports. If there is anything worth keeping, merge it. Or not. — Becksguy (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Stickball. Agreed that this is non-notable. It's also almost an A7, except for having been created by a notable company. It's also written like an advertisement. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Stick Sports. There is no need for separate pages for each of their online games, the less significant ones (if not all) should be described on the Stick Sports page. The capitalised Stick Baseball should not redirect to stickball if there is this unique alternative, though Stick baseball should if not already. |→ Spaully^₪† 10:26, 1 April 2009 (GMT)

Actually Spaully's suggestion makes more sense. Changing my vote. Also agree it's almost a CSD A7 and also a bit spammy. A link could be left at Stickball, but that's not for an AfD to decide. — Becksguy (talk) 11:07, 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 Marasmusine (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stick Motorsport

Non-notable website game. MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find nothing to support a claim to notability for this webgame/website either. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:10, 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 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The website and the original Stick Cricket might have some marginal notability, but that notability does not get inherited by everything that's subsequently posted on the site. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:57, 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 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Lotu5

A bit of procedural nomination. Article was written by the subject (User:Lotu5) and Google news has ~~no articles~~ only one article available on her. CyberGhostface (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – I cannot find anything past the couple of reliable sources in the article that can suggest significant coverage. MuZemike 03:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? I just searched google news and this article comes up: My Gender Is Bunny

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2009/mar/25/my-gender-bunny/ San Diego Reader - ‎Mar 25, 2009‎ Micha Cárdenas, the 31-year-old man/woman/ dragon in question, sits in a chair three feet from the couch. He’s facing me, but I can’t see his eyes due to ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.35.194 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, one article then.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 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 00:05, 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. Tone 16:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Stick (game)

Non-notable party game. Violates WP:NOT. Prod was removed for reasoning of basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In 2 years no sources have been added to the article to satisfy removal of the prod. A Gsearch [51] only turns up hits for a song and the memory card of the same name. twirligig_T to^the C 19:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will say this: it's definitely a real and very common game, and I'd be far from surprised if there are reliable sources out there someplace (there are many books on party games, after all). It's usually done with a baseball bat, though, and usually called Dizzy Bat or something similar. No vote yet, but I could see this being keepable if sources are found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move and expand to Dizzy bat A common game. Google Search for Dizzy Bat Gigs (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 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 00:05, 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 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like not too many people want to comment on this AfD. A Google search indicates that Dizzy bat is the more common name for this game, so I would support a move to that name. I also found some references to "Dizzy bat race" and "Dizzy bat relay", but without more time to research, I'm not 100% sure if they are the same thing. In any case, a quick Gsearch and Gnews search seems to indicate that there would be enough reliable sources to make an article out of this, although I don't have the time ATM to tackle it. Overall, I'd say keep and move to Dizzy bat. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is kept, it should be moved to dizzy bat. I too know it by that name. No opinion on sources being enough. Hobit (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the game appears to be better known under the alternative name dizzy bat, none of the google hits provided in the link above are reliable. There is one eHow article, but Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 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, the suitable points have been aired in the debate below. Hiding T 09:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiye Lambo

Biography which does not provide references indicating the subject's notability. Only 98 hits on Google (mostly short bios very similar to the article here on Wikipedia and presumably used to tell seminar/presentation attendees a little about him), some listings on business directories, and some info on his own company's website. Astronaut (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a résumé mixed with an advertisment, not an encyclopædia article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete unable to find reliable, independent sources which discuss the topic more than trivially. Fails WP:N and WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 22:56, 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 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The only mentions I can find in reliable sources appear to be from reprinted press releases. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:02, 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 10:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I-Mag

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:WEB criteria - I couldn't find anything about it on Google or Google News. There are a few results for "Islamic Magazine" but it's a different publication. No sources at all in the article, and it doesn't state either why the website is notable. Laurent (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as described, this is not notable; there are other, similarly named sites that may be notable. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A fairly well written article, but sadly it does not seem to pass WP:GNG, as it does not seem to have been the subject of any secondary sources, nor does it have any indication that it passes the criteria for WP:WEB Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:37, 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 00:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animas-La Plata Water Project

Blatant opinion piece. Not sure this is notable? No sources. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is notable, as there are a few news written about it: [52] [53]. However it's pure WP:OR at the moment, so I think most if not all of the text can be deleted and replaced with a short stub based on the two previous links. Laurent (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could it be merged in Animas? Laurent (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quick gsearch shows it's notable. I was bold and took a chainsaw to the thing to get rid of the POV problems.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm! I should have looked at the history first. Looks like the article was hijacked in this edit. If anyone prefers the March 13 version to mine, feel free to go back to that one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-hijacked version seems to be okay (could do with more sources, but there's nothing that makes it qualify for deletion). I suggest we go back to that revision. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:47, 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 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert and Keep: Revert to the March the 13th version, then keep it as it seems to be notable, passing WP:GNG as it has been subject of secondary sources. Although, it could use a little bit of love and care even after, if, a revert is preformed. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:55, 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. MBisanz ^talk 10:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reeves of Bath

I don't think this orphan article meets the notability criteria. The editor who created it has not be active for a year. — Rod ^talk 20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find three sources: [54], [55], [56], which convince me that this article is accurate/true. But I can't find any sources written specifically about it or anything that would enable us to expand it to more than a stub. I'd like to give some others the opportunity to find sources that maybe I can't find. I'd say Delete if we can't find any sources giving more significant coverage. Cazort (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's nothing wrong with stubs, especially when you've found the references to back it all up. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is (or better, was) a company of stonemasons/grave stone-cutters in the Bath, UK area. Prima facie, there's nothing wrong with an article on a defunct company, but I'd like to see some explanation of why their work is worth an article: were they the biggest grave-stone maker at the time (at least in Bath), or cut grave stones for the famous, or had a style that has been studied? -- llywrch (talk) 19:50, 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 00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They're a prominent mason (where they purely monumental? I thought they did other decorative details too) during the Regency period of Bath's architectural heights. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any sources for these comments? Simply asserting that they were prominent is not grounds to keep the page. The sources I found above (which were the ONLY sources I was able to find) simply mention these masons...which establishes their existence but not exactly their notability. I would like to keep but I really think we need to find more sources before we can justify a keep. Cazort (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, or I would have posted them. For physical evidence, get over to the Museum of Bath at Work. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google Books search shows that the subject created many notable monuments. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 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 10:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Hopewell

Non-notable place, only links are to business run at the site and not the historic nature of the site itself. fr33k man -s- 20:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 21:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I could only find two news references for this, and the correct name for the place is actually "New Hopewell Center for the Arts".Wacko Jack O 22:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WacoJacko; I also could not verify that this has any ties to the linked other Hopewell, other than coincidence of name. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Weak delete per WacoJacko; links have been provided by the author, but the notability is basically based on coverage of the family in books and current businesses there on the web. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this historic home and arts center appears to be possibly notable. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 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 00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This simply does not meet WP:GNG: it has not been non-trival subject of any secondary sources, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:43, 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 10:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I-Mag

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:WEB criteria - I couldn't find anything about it on Google or Google News. There are a few results for "Islamic Magazine" but it's a different publication. No sources at all in the article, and it doesn't state either why the website is notable. Laurent (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as described, this is not notable; there are other, similarly named sites that may be notable. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A fairly well written article, but sadly it does not seem to pass WP:GNG, as it does not seem to have been the subject of any secondary sources, nor does it have any indication that it passes the criteria for WP:WEB Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:37, 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 merge to Butler University and Valparaiso University. MBisanz ^talk 10:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoosier Helmet Trophy

WP:Notability. Is this trophy, or the form it takes, of significant note or interest outside of the two schools concerned? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 21:53, 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, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Butler University and Valparaiso University. Beyond the athletics programs of those two schools, this topic has no notability. However, there's no reason why information included here couldn't be retained in the athletics sections for those universities' articles. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the aforementioned university articles. Seems that any topics related to the athletic programs or rivalries of two schools would be best included on those pages and not standalone stubs (unless the page becomes too large to be readable). _spǝǝp ^spɹoʍ3100ʇnɯɐɥɐq 06:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: This Page fails WP:GNG. I think that from here merging the information into the articles mentioned by A Stop at Willoughby, Butler University and Valparaiso University, is the best action Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:32, 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 Tumbleweed Connection. MBisanz ^talk 10:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talking Old Soldiers

And I quote from the original author, "Though having achieved little fame..." This article fails to establish how its subject is notable. Being included in an early album or having a demo version released is not substantial enough to make it notable, and being "a favorite of earlier fans" is far too unquantifiable to rely on for notability - not to mention original research. Khalfani Khaldun 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just merge anything useful to Tumbleweed Connection and then leave a redirect? Hiding T 19:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably should have mentioned that my suggestion is merge if there can be anything useful found and redirect, though I see little of use in the article to begin with. Khalfani Khaldun 19:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability. No charts, no covers, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:34, 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, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge(?) and Redirect: The article does clearly does not pass WP:NSONGS. In my opinion any useful and verifiable information, which seems to be sadly lacking (if there is indeed none, then a simple redirect whould be fine), should be merged to Tumbleweed Connection, then redirect Talking Old Soldiers to Tumbleweed Connection. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:29, 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 UCSB. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UCSB Hillel

A local branch of a larger student organization. No claims to meeting WP:ORG itself and the sources provided are all connected to the subject. Nuttah (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a tricky/borderline case in my opinion. The huge objection I see here is that all the sources are all on-campus UCSB sources. But I am swung to a keep because: (1) I think the current article is decent in quality, (2) there are numerous articles written covering the organization in detail in the student paper: [57]. Two more sources: [58], [59], mentioning a lecture. (3) The fact that the organization has built and owns its building, esp. since it has used green building practices. Also, the fact that they sponsor salsa is highly interesting to me, due to the connection with Argentine Jews. In short, this article has the potential to tie in with other topics, in ways that are referencable, and that is one of the key aspects of notability for me. Cazort (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local college chapters of national organizations are not usually notable; this is a good example of that. Almost everything discussed here is entirely campus-related. The wider activism discussed is pretty standard for a group of this sort--for example, they hold a Holocaust Remembrance event, and they provide space for other Jewish groups' programs. Student paper coverage of student events is generally indiscriminateNo sources outside the immediate community, and no particular reason why there should be any. . DGG (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Here's a single, minor mention of the group's Rabbi in a non-university source: [60]. Perhaps more importantly, here is an external source that documents in more detail the green building practices I mentioned: [61]. That source is external to the university and the coverage there is fairly extensive. Cazort (talk) 22:48, 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 00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing anything that strongly distinguishes this chapter from any local college organization. I agree with DGG. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can the material here be pared down and merged, most of the material into UCSB, and some of it into Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life? I still want to keep, but would strongly prefer a Merge over a delete. Cazort (talk) 22:11, 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 wiki software. MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SnipSnap

Notability: questionable reliability of references. The fact that development of this project ceased in 2007 doesn't help with establishing notability. Dandv (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Dandv (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of wiki software where it is also mentioned. Clearly not something that had any impact - there are no 3rd party refs, nor could I find any - insufficient notability for a page of its own. I42 (talk) 23:35, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect:I agree with I42's statement here, SnipSnap does not appear to pass WP:GNG, thus does not have enough notability to justify a page of its own, nor in my opinion a merge, therefore I think a simple redirect is in order Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:20, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Bernal

No evidence of notability, no sources. A Google search comes up with nothing. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least drummer of band sofa kings could be confirmed here : http://cdn.purevolume.com/sofakingde , but I do not know how reliable is this source. Listed in List of Panamanians since 2007. --Ilion2 (talk) 07:48, 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 22:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:47, 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) 23:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sparse and highly trivial coverage, no evidence of anything sufficient to satisfy WP:N or WP:MUSIC. All bands he's been in also appear non-notable and do not have articles, leading to no reasonable merge/redirect target. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Whether the coverage is sparse or trivial has no impact as to whether it should be deleted, however, the fact that there are no primary sources, let alone secondary, both mean that he fails WP:GNG, however, as 3 of his albums are claimed to have been released on CBS Records, the article may pass WP:MUSICBIO, depending on whether CBS records is notable, but in any case without reliable sources to back that claim up I'm standing by a delete. Even if sources came along showing he did release the albums on CBS, I'd still stand by the delete as I don't believe CBS is a notable company Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:11, 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.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IrishJack}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weaver Team F.C.}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITunes Originals}}