Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 23: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZiL Begemot}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DEEDS Project}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DEEDS Project}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child abuse industry}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child abuse industry}}

Revision as of 15:28, 23 April 2009

< 22 April 24 April >

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 speedy delete. by User:Dank55 with support of creator. Mgm|(talk) 08:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZiL Begemot

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

This article is based on a newspaper article that is confirmed to be an April Fool's hoax. AVandtalkcontribs 15:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The article is about the April Fool's joke itself and declares that several times. It has three news stories covering it. I would prefer to see more in line citations. The article may need help, but I don't see a reason to delete. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but does it really pass the WP:N criteria? AVandtalkcontribs 15:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the reason you nominated the article. However, I believe being covered by multiple newspapers (who thought it was a real story) does qualify as notible. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Turlo. Ikip (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is the hoax itself notable? Of the "three news articles" covering it, two are pre-hoax (talking about the car itself), and only one discusses the hoax. If all we have to go on is one news article, this would fall under WP:NOT#NEWS. Also, although Turlo points out that this article admits the hoax, actually only the lead paragraph does; the entire "Description" section describes the car as if it were real. That is an easily surmountable problem, of course, but in any case that amount of description is not really necessary since this was a hoax, and doesn't contribute to any claims of notability. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator: Go ahead, Strong Delete. When I first wrote this article, it was because I read an article from Xinhua, which linked to the article from Moscow Times, and as it looked genuine, I actually believed it. After five days from writing the article, I discovered that it was a hoax (and subsequently edited it, see talk page). I personally believe that now it is non-notable and non-encyclopedic, and should be deleted. Sorry for any trouble caused, it was a mistake of mine. Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 02:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DEEDS Project

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

This is a page for a project at the University of Toronto. This article has several issues, but the reason for deletion is that it is clearly non-notable. After extensive searching, no third-party sources about the project could be found. Many universities have database/preservation projects, there is no clear reason why this one stands out to such an extent to warrant an article. Also, there is a clear conflict of interest - this article has been created by the user DEEDS.Education, a single-purpose account which violates WP:SPAMNAME. This is not a reason for deletion in itself, but it speaks to the fact that this project is not notable in the wider academic world, at least no more so than any of the hundreds of other similar projects in universities around the world. Since this is an academic project and not a business, I'm not sure if it would be considered spam, but it's close. Otebig (talk) 15:08, 23 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. We seem to agree that while this is a viable topic, the current article is a rather useless unsourced dictionary definition. Until somebody writes a competent stub, I'm redirecting the article to (child abuse, acting solely in my capacity as editor and not as any binding part of this closure.  Sandstein  06:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Child abuse industry

Child abuse industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This looks like original research to me. meco (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is it OR, but it is extremely biased. I can't help but think what would have made the creator so one sided. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is actually pretty neutral, and this term has been very widely used, in scholarly as well as mainstream publications. It serves as the title of a book by Mary Pride. The article should have better references, and should discuss te controversial nature of the term, but is not harmful as currently written. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources. It did appear biased to me. This issue could be deal with elsewhere.--Sabrebd (talk) 20:29, 29 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 00:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment suggests merging and doesn't fit the bolded !vote - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was the consensus is for delete. It cannot be verified at this time that this show will take place. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor USA (American TV series)

The X Factor USA (American TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This TV show hasn't been confirmed, it is at the moment only an idea in Simon Cowell's head. The article contains a lot information that the author has simply guessed or made up. For example, Cowell's idea was to have the show in the autumn and not to replace American Idol with The X Factor. The person who wrote the article has made up a start date, judges and all sorts of other information. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 14:52, 23 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) 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment Mgm makes a good argument that a redirect may not be the right thing to do. Let's point this discussion back to "keep" or "delete". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is believed to be aired in 2010/2011 from August/September through to December...We don't even know what will be on the American TV schedule for this September yet! Sounds like someone trying to pass a hoax by us...as a matter of fact their name is all over it. No need for a redirect as title is extremely clumsy and unlikely. Nate • (chatter) 01:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nate. I believe the American franchise won't air in American TV sets. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 02:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nate. If this show were really already scheduled to air, it would be scheduled for a lot sooner than January 2011; it wouldn't take that long to put it into production. This article is, at best, wishful thinking. Do not redirect; we can wait until the show is legitimately announced before having any kind of reference to it in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 30 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 16:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Egypt relations

Belarus–Egypt relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that doesn't seem to satisfy WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 13:35, 22 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 03:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Paraguay relations

Cyprus–Paraguay relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random and laughable combination by the obsessive stub creator. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered strong keep as it does not assess the notability of the subject. another editor has said Centralized discussions are not arbitration, or even mediation. There is no definite outcome of a centralized discussion, and even if there was, the underlying issue is and will always be one of notability LibStar (talk) 13:30, 30 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 03:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Zambia relations

Greece–Zambia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that doesn't seem to satisfy WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 13:42, 22 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. One (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indika Wettasinghe

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

This was submitted to PROD under the following grounds: "Not playing at the highest level, does not meet WP:ATHLETE" by User:HeureusementIci. Contesting the PROD and taking this to AfD on the following reasons: I would like the community to build or clarify a consensus on whether junior players representing their country in international contests do meet the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:Athlete. Also see discussion at User talk:HeureusementIci#PROD on Indika Wettasinghe. Nominated for clarification of consensus so vote Neutral. MLauba (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article only states he was member of the ITF team. It doesn't say anything about actually competing. He might also be notable by sheer coverage if more press attention exists. If Indika is notable, the article needs more information to show it. Right now, there's not sufficient content to make an informed decision. - Mgm|(talk) 08:16, 24 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 00:59, 30 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) mynameinc 19:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by Ashley Tisdale

List of songs by Ashley Tisdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of songs by Demi Lovato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wholly redundant to the information contained in the discography, single, and album articles.—Kww(talk) 22:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated these two because I noticed these two. We'll see how this AFD goes, and, if it's warranted, I'll nominate the rest.—Kww(talk) 02:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.4.196 (talk) 09:48, 26 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. Wikipedia is not a directory listing, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Notability has not been established for the (otherwise arbitrary) intersection of subjects "supermarket chains" and "Bahrain". SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of supermarket chains in Bahrain

List of supermarket chains in Bahrain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list of supermarket chains in a particular place is not notable. This isn't even a list of supermarkets, just chains. Other lists like this one are List of restaurant chains in Bahrain, List of parks and gardens in Bahrain, List of movie theatres in Bahrain, List of beaches in Bahrain, and List of hotels in Bahrain none of which appear notable. Mohummy (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very notable article because the people have the right to know the supermarket chains in the Kingdom of Bahrain. This article is very similar to List of supermarket chains in Belgium.Canadian (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is notable about a list of stores? Wikipedia doesn't recognize notability because something similar is an article, see WP:WAX. Frankly, the Belgium one looks equally non-notable and I've marked it as such. Mohummy (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this is a clear case of what Wikipedia is not. A list is relevant if it contains an encyclopedic article along with it. Wikipedia is not intended to be a catalog or phonebook. There are plenty of relevant places on the web for such things, but the rules of this site plainly state that this is not one of them. Perhaps if the page advised about the relevance of supermarkets in Bahrain, and how they are notable from a neutral point of view; then it would have a purpose here. JogCon (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or make the list a category. Ikip (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The resulting list would be a shortened phone book directory which Wikipedia is not. I disagree that Lists of parks and beaches are similar because those are features of the city rather than businesses and a list of hotels could be useful for Wikitravel, if we've got the whole license thing sorted out. - Mgm|(talk) 08:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. is article does not in any way resemble a phonebook. It is a preliminary step toward creating articles for the chain themselves. Once this article is kept in wikipedia, it creates a base for further writing posts for the supermarket themselves. these things do take time and one cannot expect the articles on the markets to spring up over night. as i recall the supermarkets are relevant because as of now, one of the chains does have an article spinneys and Al Muntazah. this list is revelevant once again because it simplifies the experiance for users. it would not work as a category because the articles on the mentioned supermarkets will be written. it does take some time. Canadian (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks pretty useful to me. This will make the wikipedia community become more aware of the structures and the businesses located in Bahrain. MacGyverMagic pointed out that a list of parks would be useful for Wikitravel, but one can also argue that a list of supermarkets would be equally important. If with more research, one can add articles for the supermarkets themselves, then wikipedia would become more complete. Chicagocubsfan (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC) — Chicagocubsfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
User:Chicagocubsfan is a new user who appears to be a follower of User:Canadian, is this an independent opinion? Mohummy (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list and items in wikipedia must be notable and verifiable. Nothing in this article indicates these stores are notable. Mohummy (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion Mohummy, first wikipedia is full of lists. list of airlines, car makers, gdps, goes on and on. second, this list of supermarkets for a particular country is nothing new, there are lists from belgium, bulgaria and country X and Y. This article is wholly relevant. Canadian (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a directory listing. This currently contains no encyclopedic material, and of the chains listed only one currently makes an assertation of notability. There's nothing saying why Bahrain is so special of a place for supermarket chains, and I can't find any reliable sources to add to the zero that we have to claim it does. ThemFromSpace 08:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 09:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Alexander

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

Nomination for deletion of previously deleted article about a non-notable actor - no referencing of any sort, article may have been written by someone with a conflict of interest Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is substantially different to previous versions so I'm declining the speedy - not sure whether his career has progressed to the point of being notable but can I ask that people reassess on the basis of the current article? ϢereSpielChequers 14:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also after a few minutes googling I've found some references - and some of his work is dated 2008 and 2009 which in itself is a reason to assess this article afresh as the last AFD was in 2007. ϢereSpielChequers 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence - If we had significant coverge in reliable sources, I'd be a weak keep on this -- the iCarly role is significant, I don't know about the Pet Detective Jr. role. Without sources (and IMDb is not a reliable source), we really have next to nothing to say about him. I'll check back in a few days to see where this stands. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was nominated for a Young Artist Award which I have now referenced to the organization itself rather than IMDB. It's a well-respected award in the industry and the Dutch media called them Children's Oscars. I believe such a nomination means he meets the WP:CREATIVE criterion "The person's work [...] has won significant critical attention". Referencing definitely needs work but seeing how his career is entirely in the internet age, providing reliable sources for cleanup is possible. - Mgm|(talk) 08:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination for deletion, when I first spotted this (after someone had vandalized it, I could only find one possible WP:RS on a very quick Google. I am please dthat other editors have cleaned it up and referenced it. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notable found, improvements made, and withdrawn nomination. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources discuss the subject of a BLP in any nontrvial depth (the current state of this blp) and none findable by me? Delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:26, 29 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 Seahouses. Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seahouses Festival

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

Created by a WP:SPA called "Seahousesfestival" (account renamed to Mmytik [2]), this article appears to fail WP:NOTE as it has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of its subject. Cirt (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand that this page should contain factual verifiable information and that is what I am endeavouring to do. I do not want it to sound like a promo for this particular event but it is necessary that it should contain legitimate verifiable facts about the festival, as a useful addition to the 'festivals' subject area in general. I will present the information without hyperbole or unsubstantiated embellishment. The information on this page will hopefully feed into other subject areas which deal with Northumbrian culture. I would be grateful if you would not delete the page so hastily. Coverage in independent sources is available and can be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahousesfestival (talk • contribs) 14:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a moment to read WP:NOTE. Unfortunately the "Seahouses Festival" has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:00, 30 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 consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Emo Apocalypse

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

I had tagged this compilation album speedy A9 on the grounds that, though there are a few songs by notable artists, the label is not notable. No assertion of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Delete fails to accredit notability and sources. Riddled with vandalism and spam as well. Renaissancee (talk) 02:04, 30 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deandre Brunston

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

Fails WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:BIO, so unnewsworthy that the L.A Times didn't even bother covering the story, few google hits, mainly mirrors, the youtube video, and biased sources which called cops as "pigs" Delete Secret account 13:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I examined all sources and only one is a forum. People's Weekly World (pww.org) is not a forum, it is a reliable news source, and the three hits on that site are all full articles (and not even opinion pieces): although it is openly written from a socialist perspective, I think it drives home the point I made earlier that this person's death has been picked up by activists. rwor.org is the official publication of the American Communist party, and The Militant is an international weekly socialist newspaper. All but the L.A. times article is non-local, and although it is in the local section, the L.A. Times is a very widely read paper. Cazort (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify...are you basing the comment on the erroneous comment that "all seven of those hits are from forums", or do you take issue with the reliability of the sources given? The sources other than the L.A. times all have a very clear socialist perspective; however, I don't see that as terribly relevant to this notability debate--this fact simply clarifies "who" is interested in this topic. Cazort (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify this as I asked above? Thanks. Cazort (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I consider that for local events, the test for significance is coverage in major sources outside their immediate surroundings. Police mishandling of domestic violence is so common as to be generally a matter that will not get such wider coverage. DGG (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DGG. There doesn't seem to be the coverage right this minute to create a balanced article. The most recent report is 18 months ago, so the level of reportage that has been generated doesn't seem to me to indicate the event is one to have impact on society. I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of that, but for me this incident, while a tragic one, hasn't generated a level of interest which would for me indicate it meets the relevant guidance and policies. Hiding T 19:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe we will just have to respectfully disagree. For me, this article: [9] is what swings it for me. It is NOT a local paper, and it covers information not in the original L.A. times article--including the wrongful death suit, and discussion of how this one death fits into a broader framework of problems and activism. Cazort (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails bio, one event, etc... Sorry he was killed, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain how WP:BIO isn't passed? One event is certainly debatable, but I don't see any issue with BIO as the sources are significant in coverage, multiple and reliable. Hobit (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just added some material to the page, utilizing some of the sources I mentioned, and found another source although it is not particularly good for arguing notability. I will add more later. I think this article is salvageable, however--I haven't even begun using the original L.A. times article. Cazort (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep/move I hate these. Clearly passes WP:N and WP:BIO (neither of which say anything about local sources btw). NOT#NEWS is the obvious issue here. It was picked up by a number of specialized organizations that generate news coverage. So I'd say follow the advice we get for notnews and cover the event and not the person. It's just past NEWS in my opinion and has wide enough coverage that someone might come here looking to learn about the event. Hobit (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the capitalist and overtly conservative news sources like the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Fox News (or pretty much anything Murdoch-owned); the Washington Times, and World Net Daily are reliable, then so are the news sources from the equally hard opposite end of the political spectrum. If we disallow leftist/socialist websites, then conservative rags like the WSJ and Washington Times are also no longer valid to use. It would be a mockery of NPOV otherwise. I've never believed that sourcing should be non-regional. That said, there's enough sourcing to keep. rootology (C)(T) 13:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone is arguing anything about capitalism and other aspects of the political spectrum. The argument is actually turning on whether this person's death, no matter how tragic, is something we should note in Wikipedia. Yes, that sentence sounds heartless, but it is working out how to balance these things up. If we want to talk about boases, I'm wondering how we judge that this persons death is of more value than any other persons death. That's the crucial turning point. Is it just that the death is covered in a small number of sources, because if that is the case, what are the implications? Hiding T 09:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment about the politics was in response to Secret's saying we should not us "biased sources which called cops as 'pigs'" which would fly in the face of NPOV. He's basically, in this nomination, elevating his own political views above WP:N and WP:NPOV, which is inappropriate. rootology (C)(T) 14:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be very hard to argue that Brunston's death should not be noted/included in wikipedia. The question is just...how/where? This discussion is about whether Brunston should have a page. Hobit (and I would tend to agree with this somewhat) suggested that it might be better to cover the event, not the person--the lack of any sort of biographical information in reliable sources seems to back this up. Cazort (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding it that hard to argue the point. Are you suggesting we record every instance of wrongful death at the hands of the police? I'm not sure of the implications of that.Once you extend that across the globe, to avoid systemic bias... Hiding T 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... even if it was only those deaths questioned by major national newspapers in their main sections, which would of course exclude this, I think that would be pretty questionable. Nevard (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think wikipedia should include every instance of wrongful death at the hands of police that has had an extensive article written in an international socialist newspaper about the instance, several years after the death, in addition to whatever coverage it had in the local paper at the time of the occurrence. These papers do not indiscriminately cover all people wrongly killed by police...if they did they'd have no room for their other content! Deandre Brunston may not be anywhere near as big a symbol as Rodney King, but he is still a symbol. These two articles alone, in my opinion, make the event meet WP:N even if the person is not notable enough to justify a bio. If you want to delete this page, I can respect that decision even though I'd personally prefer to keep it. But excluding the whole event from mention anywhere on wikipedia...I want to ask...why would you even want to do that? What would be gained? That's an extreme measure that I do not think other editors would support. Cazort (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2003 is still in the transition years of online sourcing but I'm finding materials just fine. I've added a few and done some clean-up work as well as sourcing leads. -- Banjeboi 00:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for locating these new sources. I noticed that one of them used the spelling "Deondre Brunston". This turned up more detailed coverage: [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14], and a mention in [15]. None of these sources overlap with the ones I had initially found, and I think these sources should be considered in the deletion discussion. Cazort (talk) 02:39, 30 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. A7 Cirt (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galahad Lager

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

unreferenced 4 sentence article, about a discount beer brand with an alleged cult following Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sporkman

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

Non notable comic. Sporkman gets quite a few of GHits, but when you start looking in a more focused manner, it turns out that e.g. one of the two available comics gets only 9 Google hits[18], or that Sprokman plus the name of one of the artists gives 83 Google distinct hits[19] and no relevant Google News hits[20]. The comic has not received significant attention in reliable independent sources, no mainstream publication, no major awards, ... Fram (talk) 12:53, 23 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 03:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Gilham

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

Person notable for one event. Also violates Wikipedia is not a newspaper. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Media coverage only due to his crime. WP:NOTNEWS. PirateSmackK (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is sufficient coverage for verifiability. WP:BLP states"If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events [...] fit into this category." This is certainly well documented; look at all the sources. This is a well written article and I see no reason to delete it. — Jake Wartenberg 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The key portion of your WP:BLP extract is "if the event is significant". Mr. Gilham is accused of mudering his parents. While this story may be tragic, and such tragedies often inspire a great deal of press at the time, it is hardly significant on a global scale (or should we start adding articles about ALL patricides?). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not, if there is sufficient press coverage? You may have ignored the last bit there, "Individuals notable for well-documented events [...] fit into this category." — Jake Wartenberg 23:09, 23 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. One (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-Haunting We Will Go (play)

A-Haunting We Will Go (play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Creator does not have an article, and the play has no reliable sources to establish notability. GlassCobra 12:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Apologies, I was unaware of Tim Kelly's article. However, I will yield to community consensus on whether this play has enough coverage for a separate article or not. GlassCobra 14:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Glass Cobra: This play deserves a Wikipedia article because, when I signed up to participate in this play two years ago, I wanted to learn more about it, but I couldn't because there was at that time no information about it online, except for perhaps the publisher's website. So, I created this article. If anyone cared to read through the script (to which I added a link in the article itself), they would find that my summary is accurate. Future participants in this play deserve to be able to go to Wikipedia and learn what they're getting into. The same goes for audience members. As for "Creator does not have an article"? What does that mean? Of course I do. I will address the issue of notability in due time. I can't get to it now because I am in the middle of finals week. In the meantime, please don't take any drastic action. I should add that I took pains to improve this article once again. Please tell me if they resolve the issues you have with this article. Ravenclaw7 (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is some third-party coverage in reliable sources,[21] but it seems this play is mainly popular for school plays, so production and reception info will likely be insignificant. Tim Kelly (playwright) already mentions that he wrote this play. The rest of the current article is merely a plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT - currently under discussion). This play is already covered at www.playdatabase.com at similar length, but wikipedia doesn't allow articles on films either just because they have an entry on IMDb. – sgeureka t•c 07:29, 24 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 16:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable play by notable playwright. All sources seem to mention performances or mention it merely as a work of the playwright and are not focused on the play itself, i.e., no analysis or criticism of the play. Therefore sources do not exist to establish notability or to create an encyclopedia article about the play. Drawn Some (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added links with reviews. The play is performed and Wikipedia entry may be useful for the readers and theatre fans. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Midday Milers

Melbourne Midday Milers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable group of runners. They have gotten some attention in one article in the Age[22] as an example of runners on a specific location, and that's it. They won an Ocfam charity race[23], but that has not received any attention in independent sources. Only 35 distinct Google hits, and the one given Google News hit[24]. Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 11:15, 23 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 consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Fiction Project

Portland Fiction Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a writing group that does not establish notability. A search for sources writing about the group turn up an article from a local weekly and a brief mention. That's insufficient to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nom the sources do not meet the criteria for notability. One local article and as the nom stated a brief mention in the second source listed above. The only link with the Wiki article and the second source is to a blog. Seems like a vehicle to advertise the blog.Meph Yazata (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:03, 30 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, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spacecraft in the Honorverse

Spacecraft in the Honorverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Huge, unsourced, infodump of trivia about fictional spaceships. Tagged for issues over a year ago [25] and issues unaddressed. Has grown by about 8kb, but mostly it's just deck chairs [26]. There are pretty much no sources anywhere in this franchise so there is little reason to expect sources to emerge. Appears to be primarily a synthesis from the primary sources. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: went to Wikia; [27][28]. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Describes an important concept and important characters in a particularly notable series of books. It would be impossible to gain an adequate understanding of the series without this content existing. Highly useful. Article has tremendous potential. Wikipedia is a meta-fansite with unlimited space. WP:PRESERVE. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you meant to say "keep", no? Debresser (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    see: sarcasm Jack Merridew 13:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Debresser (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Trivial, unreferenced - vulnerable to OR. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unreferenced trivia, plot summary and OR. Generally, the nuances between ship classes/sizes aren't important to understanding these books; it's sufficient to know they're big ships, and sometimes the protagonist overcomes tough odds to beat a bigger ship. These details are superfluous -- and unreferenced, some of it synthesis, on top of that. --EEMIV (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since it can be sourced to the original fiction, it isn't OR. It's not about the plot, though it shows up as background, as it should. The individual ships are not notable, so a combination article on them is appropriate. Personally, I couldn't care less about this series, which I have never read and never intend to read, but I see this as an attack on all articles on elements of fiction. It may succeed, because typically only those who care about the particular fiction pay much attention to the AfDs, while the reason for opposing is general. I'm not alleging bad faith--the motives of the nom is explicit in multiple comments: he wants decreased coverage of fiction in Wikipedia. An honest opinion, no matter how bad it would be for Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all-for appropriate levels of coverage of all types of fiction. However, this sort of stuff is plot-regurgitation motivated by mere fan enthusiasm. There do not appear to be sources establishing the notability of the books themselves! Just because something is important to someone does not make it important. Genuine notability — of the significant depth of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources kind — is our approximation of a test for 'Importance'. I believe that this project should focus on the important stuff, and that weeding-out the junk is essential to the core goals of this project. I'm all for coverage of fiction in depth if serious people have stood up and taken serious note. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Jack, how on earth can you know what motivates it? Fan enthusiasm has made a lot of good Wikipedia articles, on every from sports to pornography. DGG (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I can't truly know the motivation of others. It does seem to me that many are prattling on about whatever franchise has ensnared them as a means to vicariously participate in the story. This sort of effort is more appropriate for fansite than an encyclopædia. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the fictional spacecraft that are important elements in these various sci fi novels are already mentioned in the plot summaries in the articles on the books themselves. No independent, reliable sources discuss this alleged topic at all, not only making this original research, but failing verifiability and our sourcing policies. It is only a matter of fan trivia interest that "Runabouts are small civilian pleasure ships which are the Honorverse equivalent of today's sailing yachts and sport ships". Please, let's not help wikipedia continue its descent into being a fansite, lets strongly apply the rather low inclusion threshold, and let's remember we must write from and for the perspective of our world, not honor harringtons (or whatever the fictional last name is.)Bali ultimate (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a perfectly valid list, about a topic of importance within a fictional series. Dream Focus 11:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per DGG. Ikip (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- I understand these novels are modeled after the Horatio Hornblower novels. We have articles on some of the individual fictional ships Horatio Hornblower served on. Perhaps those advocating deletion of this article can explain why the fictional ships in this series of novels are less worthy of coverage here than the fictional ships Horatio Hornblower served on? Geo Swan (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A few of those are real ships with appropriate coverage. Most of the ships do not have any such article. Three of them are entirely fictional, and appears to be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF; I've redirected them to the single works in which they appear. --EEMIV (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You apparently redirected them without merging the information they had. It was reverted, but I would not oppose a proper merge for some individual ship articles there or here into either the specific novel, when possible, or into articles like this. DGG (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is significant content, I will revert, and we continue the discussion on the talk pages of the articles concerned. As it conveniently happens, there are good secondary sources about that universe also--probably better ones, as its quite popular among academics. Geo, it's risky to raise something like this at an afd, because it tends to produce this sort of response: let's get rid of any thing else that might happen to help the other side of the argument. The OTHER STUFF people allege in these discussions is often good stuff--the article nominated for deletion is quite reasonably likely to be the weakest of the lot, and then the whole thing may be lost in senseless deletion. DGG (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked at HMS Lydia and it seems to have an independent source. This seems reasonable given that Forester's not Weber. And I agree with DGG that more and better sources are likely to exist for the Lydia. This is, in fact, an excellent example of the difference; only one fictional realm is genuinely notable and warrants more than basic coverage. Weber may have looted prior art for grist, but that didn't net him any notability. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with DGG's reasoning.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Seems like if this was a notable subject, there would be some coverage in secondary sources. AniMatetalk 22:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The arguments for delete, above, seem to be variations on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. People do write serious works on material like this. Geo Swan (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty much per nom. The subject fails WP:N, just because its an article in a fictional universe doesn't mean it gets a free bypass from our notability guidelines. It also fails WP:WAF as its from an entirely in-universe perspective. This has been tagged for help for over a year and especially with the close scruitny that AfD gives, if this article hasn't gotten help now than its either impossible to help or nobodys willing to fix it. There are still no reliable sources for verification, let alone an assertion of notability. I don't see any arguments of the form IDONTLIKEIT here. Nobody is saying they don't like the material; its that it shouldn't be presented without reasonable sources in an encyclopedia that has discriminate inclusion guidelines and a policy of verifiability. ThemFromSpace 04:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mateo Arias

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Only had small roles according to IMDB and I found no press coverage to establish notability per WP:GNG. All I found where brief mentions that he was Moises Arias's brother. Delete - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinga Herrmann

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

PROD went for standard 5 days, but I have discovered it has been PRODd and deleted before (quite recently), so listing at AfD instead. PROD contents: Not quite CSD, but seems to fail WP:BIO - unremarkable person ~fl 09:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arda Vandella Collins

Arda Vandella Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was prodded with the reason "Unable to ascertain notability for the book re WP:BK, and thereby rendering the authors claim for notability invalid per WP:CREATIVE". One editor's inability to determine notability is not sufficient reason for a prod. PRODding of articles should only happen in cases where a deletion would be uncontroversial. When you fail to determine something yourself, the best course of action is to ask for help. "When in doubt, don't delete". I'm moving it here for wider community consensus and remain neutral until I've looked at it in detail myself. Mgm|(talk) 09:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Strangely, Google is not the ONLY search engine available to Wikipedians. And just to clarify, more than simply being "listed", she is the recipient of an award from "Who's Who Among America's Teachers". Not just a listing, but an award and recognition in her special field of endeavour. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MQS, you wrote:
  • Strangely, Google is not the ONLY search engine available to Wikipedians.
Your sarcasm is not appreciated. While Google is not the only search engine, it is generally regarded as the single most comprehensive (free) one. Doing all-dates news archive search plus a web search indicates sufficient good faith so as not to be the target of snide remarks.
You continued:
  • [M]ore than simply being "listed", she is the recipient of an award from "Who's Who Among America's Teachers". Not just a listing, but an award.
The source of this—a promotional blurb—is hardly reliable. And if actually read the text in the source, it appears that it is no more than a listing (people do not receive a notable "award" multiple years in a row, and it refers to "appear"ing as the consequence of the award):
In 2003-2004, Mrs. Collins was the recipient of the "Who's Who Among America's Teachers" award and appears in the 8th edition. She was again nominated for this award and will appear in the 9th edition as well.
If you have a source (even a non-reliable one) that leads to a different inference, please share it. Bongomatic 00:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
??? No need to continue a debate you've already won. I struck my keep at 23:27 (see below) and 1 hour and 24 minutes later at 0:51 you cut apart my coment to reply piece-mill. I have re-stiched the pieces, as what I said and how I said it is something that does not itself require editing simply to accomodate your responses. And no sarcasm was intended, just a reminder inre your earlier sourcing remark to say I understand that Wikipedia recognizes that Google has limitations and is not the only search engine available. Wiki lists a few of the many online engines, and gladly accepts hardcopy sources such as public libraries (where that Who's Who Among America's Teachers can be found and her award verified). I should have said just that and not allowed for any misinterpretation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no matter how much good faith I can muster, there is no way to interpret a "Strangely" before a blindingly obvious statement as other than sarcastic. Bongomatic 02:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it's not because Who's Who Among America's Teachers is not online that I question the likelihood of the subject's being granted an "award", it's because the claim itself (which is in a promotional context) and the nature of the book (which can be established here, for example) lead to the presumption of a directory entry. If a Wikipedia editor claimed to have read the book and identified that the "award" was bona fide it would be a different matter. Nobody is (or at least I am not) suggesting that print sources that are not online are inadmissible. Bongomatic 02:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving discussion per Irony, Sportsmanship, Eristic. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic Baby

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

Article lacks neutrality and appears to be an essay written with the aim of blaming "chemicals" for rising instances of diseases. It also promotes a film. The links provided are only tangentally related to the article as they discuss the perceived phenomenon and not the film. This should be deleted because it's not encyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Military during World War 2

AfDs for this article:
Russian Military during World War 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Basically a research paper/treaste with lots of POV and no real footnotes. Instead it has a list of sources. Everything salvagable is covered in Eastern Front (World War II), History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1927–1953) and other places. User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to keep this as a redirect. People are highly unlikely to type the whole term in the search box, enough to get an exact match. Cazort (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree: due to the new auto-complete feature in the search box, if you typed in "Russian military", the rest of the phrase would appear. So a redirect would be a useful -- & enticing -- thing. -- llywrch (talk) 21:47, 24 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. Listed for 20 days with nobody but the nominator arguing for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As We Fight

As We Fight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability I can find (unless an EM entry counts?), fails WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 08:53, 23 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) 00:19, 30 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 00:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agar (software)

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

Software with no assertion of notability (or notability generally) that I can find. Declined prod, with no reason given. Ironholds (talk) 08:50, 23 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 16:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mouse country

Mickey Mouse country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and I change my recommendation from Keep to Merge and Redirect, although I think looking at the size of that section, as a separate matter, I would recommend to Split the section on pejorative uses into its own page, and make a paragraph on it about the term "Mickey Mouse country". Man this sounds complex but it shouldn't be too hard! Cazort (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brotest

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

Non-notable neologism. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Fisher

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

WP:BLP1E. Minimal sourcing doesn't show notability. BJTalk 07:51, 23 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Mexican

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

Note: this is an article about immigrants from the South Asian country of India, not about the indigenous people of Mexico. Probable WP:HOAX, definitely fails WP:N. The article was created by CARLMART (talk · contribs), who was indefinitely blocked last year for adding huge amounts of false content to human migration articles. I can't confirm any of the content. The only significant connections between Indian emigrants and Mexico are:

  1. The well-documented phenomenon of Punjabi men in early 20th century California marrying Mexican women [35]—but there's no evidence that any significant number of them or their descendants actually went to Mexico.
  2. Manabendra Nath Roy in the Communist Party of Mexico—but one person decades ago does not make the entire community notable
  3. Newspaper article about Sikhs in Mexico [36]—most would appear to be non-Indian converts

Obviously a naive search for "Indians in Mexico" or "Indian Mexicans" will just give you a bunch of false positives about indigeneous peoples. I tried some other web searches in both English and Spanish (which you can see in the box below), but didn't find anything useful. The only source at all about them is a report from the Non Resident Indians & Persons of Indian Origin Division of India's Ministry of External Affairs which covers Indians in every country in the world; it does mention Indians in Mexico on page 239 for about three paragraphs [37]. This isn't a sufficient basis on which to write an article. Other sources you'd expect to find information in, like Lal's The Encyclopedia of the Indian Diaspora, don't make any significant mention of Mexico at all [38].

List of Google searches
  1. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL: see comment above
  3. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL: unreliable sources only
  4. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  5. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  6. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  7. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  8. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  9. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  10. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL; not aware of an equivalent term in Spanish

Cheers, cab (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hmm, i've got some drifting thoughts about it now. In accordance with Cab, I was the first to point out the issues regarding original research about this article, and I appreciate his response. However, there are three sources which Cab has managed to find now. Since there were also three or four internet sources mentioning about Pakistanis in Tanzania, the page Pakistani Tanzanian was deleted anyway as I guess "three or four sources" is simply not enough. I can tell that this article faces the same kind of evolving scenario because the PDF file that we have is mostly talking about history of the Punjabis and that was way before in the 40's and 50's, not much about the current society. The page about Sikhs in Mexico on the other hand, mentions some 100 Indian families in Mexico ( I think), but again, the issue of lack of sources pop up. This article should be deleted and merged with Indian diaspora or Demographics of Mexico at the best. Teckgeek (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comment. What I argued on the other AfD—and what I argue here as well, is that the sources fail the "significant coverage" clause of Wikipedia:Notability. The article about Sikhs spends most of its time talking about the Mexican converts, and also about one individual Indian guy, but basically doesn't tell us any details about the Indians in Mexico as a group other than that "they exist" and "they're Sikhs". The Indian government report is a little better, but it's still rather short—and the middle paragraph focuses on investments by Indian companies, rather than actual Indian migrants. cab (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability. 207.233.67.8 (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Even if we assume that the article is factuall and the number (400) is correct and referenced, it is still too small a commumnity to be notable. Not to mention that they do not carry any influence in Mexico the way the Indian community in US or UK does. Besides there are migrants from India into practically every country on this planet (We had a station in Antarctica too!!!). That would mean approx 200 X-Indian community articles. And the biggest reason would be that it is probably a neologism. --Deepak D'Souza 13:00, 27 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 03:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no claim of significance or importance and the stated population of 400 (out of 110,000,000 Mexicans) seems almost irrelevant. I would be surprised if the true number were that low, however. Drawn Some (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--the text itself gives me no reason to think this is a notable topic, and the lack of references confirms this. The nominator's pretty exhaustive work seems more than enough to support deletion. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 URL redirection . MBisanz talk 03:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of URL redirection services

List of URL redirection services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article content is a mere list of external links. Wikipedia is not a directory. The Anome (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepMove Just because it is a directory now doesn't mean it can never be anything else. This is a perfectly notable topic, and the problems that it has can eventually be fixed. Remember, anyone can delete content. AFD is just for deleting titles. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think lists should be avoided whenever possible, and when possible, converted to prose. In the spirit of this, could we consider moving/renaming this article to URL Redirection Service? This way it would not be so much of a concern if there were only a couple members...the article could describe what such a service is, and then could discuss various sites that provide these services, together with their history, features, etc. Thoughts? Cazort (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great thought. That would be a much better contribution to Wikipedia than the list. [P.S. You inspired me so much I changed my vote :)]Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tollay agree with you that in some cases lists are fine. I think a prerequisite for a list, however, is having (a) enough items for the list to be meaningful, and (b) enough items notable enough to be included in the list, but not notable enough to have their own article (i.e. if all items in the list have their own article, a category is more appropriate). This article I think fails (a). Cazort (talk) 00:21, 24 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. Cirt (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhisiart Tal-e-bot

Rhisiart Tal-e-bot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Extensive article, but no notability asserted. Oscarthecat (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding few academic sources, two acknowledgments but no content: [39], [40]. However, I am finding a moderate amount of coverage in news sources. It appears he is not notable so much as a teacher but is notable as an activist: [41], all google news archive articles: [42]. This is enough to adequately source the article, I think. We might have to remove a few parts. I think this needs cleanup, not deletion. Cazort (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as an activist, similar level of notability as other native culture activists see for example Native American activists. This entry serves to help round out the category Welsh Activists. Definitely clean up and sourcing is needed and more participation by other editors. ejly (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability asserted by leadership of several organizations. Activism is the subjects and the articles focus. I have done a minor cleanup mostly on wikilinks. Dimitrii (talk) 18:56, 26 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) 11:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Smith (referee)

George Smith (referee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Referees aren't notable in the same was athletes are, so WP:ATHLETE doesn't apply, otherwise non-notable. MBisanz talk 05:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When WP: Articles for deletion/Stefan Grun (2nd nomination) was proposed (as you would know as you closed it), they said the simple fact that he was a referee in a major league made him notable. I think that line of reasoning is weak, but whatever is the convention. 98.212.129.124 (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Weak Keep Nothing really left to put in there, so he really has no notability, since it was so long ago, nothing really left to add that can be added. Renaissancee (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't think the subject is notable, why do you think the article should be kept? —Emufarmers(T/C) 07:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keep This is just about the most notable thing a referee can do. Other referees with similar notability seemed to have be kept --ScribbleStick (talk) 05:48, 30 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. Looking different than the average serial killer is not unusual or substantial enough to balance out WP:N/CA and WP:BLP. GlassCobra 03:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Russell (criminal)

George Russell (criminal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:BLP1E criminal, otherwise non-notable. MBisanz talk 05:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't pass Wikipedia:N/CA#Perpetrators. MBisanz talk 05:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Murnane III

George Murnane III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable executive, never CEO or otherwise terminal leader. MBisanz talk 05:18, 23 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) 12:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdada

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

non-notable. unsourced Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Real area, completely notable.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 30 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. This list is well-sourced and notable. The subject is not inherently POV; perhaps the page could be modified to make it NPOV, but that is an editing issue and is outside the scope of AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Place names considered unusual

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

Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 17.</admin><editor> I personally feel that this list violates WP:NPOV and introduces systemic bias. What constitutes "unusual" is inherently not neutral. Aervanath (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with nominator, plain and simple. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV as what is "unusual" in one country or even region is usual or the norm in another. The "centralized discussion" is unpersuasive that consensus has supposedly changed for these subjective "unusual" lists, as many of the comments there boil down to "generally I think these are not a great idea but there's one I do like." Otto4711 (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is thoroughly backed by reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability. This is the English Wikipedia, and the definition of unusual is based on the speakers of this language as documented by reliable and verifiable sources, all of which conclusively rebuts claims of WP:NPOV or WP:OR. Alansohn (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons stated by Alansohn. Krakatoa (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what is an "unusual" name? Deciding what to include will be inherently subjective and therefore POV. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    Nope. It's verifiable, and not editor POV in this case. The references make that rather clear. - jc37 07:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So who decides what's unusual? If someone decides that "New York" is a strange name for a place, and publishes that on their personal website, does that mean we should include it? Note that many of the sources presented here appear to be little more than personal homepages. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    You mean like this one which list another book as reference here? Looks to me more like a situation where perhaps some cleanup might be needed.
    Are you suggesting that there are no sources anywhere for this topic, and thus the topic is unverifiable?
    Anyway, to answer your question, if a reliable source does. - jc37 08:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm talking more like this one. And you've sort of dodged my question - what standard of inclusion do we have? Are "Medicine Hat" or "Wooloomooloo" unusual names, for example? And does the place name have to be listed as unusual? Would an article entitled "Slightly odd place names in Mongolia" qualify an article? What about a place name in English that sounds plain to a native speaker, but sounds like profanity in a foreign language? There are plenty of places were inclusion could get contentious, and I'm not really convinced that enough serious study has been done on this topic for "reliable sources" to actually exist. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    I wasn't dodging your question. It's what I said: reliable sources. Neither you or I get to decide what's "unusual".
    The closest we might get is we could make a determination like: Since this is the English language Wikipedia, we perhaps should restrict this list to such places in which the places generally have English language place names.
    But honestly, I'm wary and hesitant of even that. - jc37 08:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - referenced, and therefore, in this case, verifiable. It's not OR, and NPOV is followed, since "unusual" in this case is according to the sources. - jc37 07:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether something is unusual is determined by the sources (not individual editors) and they need to be reliable as always. (So personal websites don't count). It's easy enough to restrict it to the English language since we're an English-language publication. - Mgm|(talk) 10:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is nothing OR about such a list when the criterium is that such places are covered by sources because their name supposedly is unusual. We just combine information from multiple sources, which is what we do all over wikipedia. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn and Reinoutr. Owen× ☎ 11:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and overhaul. As we've seen with list of unusual personal names this information can be presented encyclopedicly and can be an interesting, if somewhat frivolous, read. Explaining some of the reasons why different groups see the place names as unusual and perhaps turning this into the lede for a list of notable places with names considered unusual may be a way to go. These are fixable problems. -- Banjeboi 13:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV and a magnet for nonsense. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The general principle behind this article and similar ones was discussed recently(ish) at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things and the consensus of that discussion was that there is nothing in the policies cited above by those supporting deletion that states that "lists of unusual things" in themselves are deletion-worthy. To summarise the argument, it is that "unusual" is simply shorthand for "has been regarded by at least one reliable source as being unusual" and is a necessary shorthand for an article title - this was supported by a good majority of the contributors to the discussion. If there are other reasons why this particular article is deletion-worthy, let's discuss them. A discussion on issue which have already been resolved in the centralised discussion is not going to move us forward. SP-KP (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are multiple sources explaining why certain names are considered unusual from various perspectives. DGG (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unusual to whom, in what time period and at what location? What happens when things once considered "unusual" become usual? The attempt to define "unusualness" in this article is particularly lame. Let's break it down 1. "Names with unorthodox spelling or sound." Well, that's oddly discursive because, of course, "unorthodox" spelling and sound is in the eye of the beholder -- is in fact, a stand-in for "unusual" in this case. 2." Names which are extremely short (e.g., one-letter names) or extremely long." Extremely long, eh? Extremely short, eh? Well, where? Lots of shortish names in lots of countries that are bog-standard in those places. 3. "Names that describe something that is commonly not a geographical location." Let me translate that sentence -- "names that are not usually used to describe a geographical location are in fact considered unusual." Discursive again, with the added problem of defining what "things" are not "commonly geographical locations." 4. "Calendar related names." This one is just odd -- if there is a January, Texas, why is that any more usual or unusual than Paris, Texas or anything else? That's just an assertion. Finally, there are no examples of any of these supposedly unusual place names here (though i'm personally delighted there aren't). So what is the point of this article again? All it seems to say (in a fashion all dressed up to go to the prom) is the following: "By some standards used by some people in some places names, some place names are considered to be unusual. Which names are considered unusual vary by location and point in history." How is that an encyclopedic topic? By all mean redirect to Toponymy after deletion.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see much in the way of information here, nor much potential for improvement. Anything useful can be merged into Toponymy. Dlabtot (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources" doesn't actually hold much water here: I can find an infinite number of reliable sources naming people as terrorists, but yet no one would ever countenance a List of terrorists, because it's inherently NPOV. Just because something has been labeled by an outside source doesn't mean the label is NPOV, it just means we're reflecting the POV of the outside sources, which is not what we should be doing.--Aervanath (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you equating the word unusual with the loaded worded terrorist? I see your point to some extent, but we have lists of political prisoners. We use sources (presumably) to determine which ones are political prisoners. In the country of imprisonment most are probably charged with crimes. Are we being POV? But this isn't really a political issue so much as an issue of "I don't like it" for many Wikipedians and some legitimate concerns about synthesis. My conclusion is that as long as we stick to reliable sources, there's not a big problem with synthesis. Sadly, as a side note, a helpful list of subjects related to Obama was just deleted. So in that case Wikipedia and POV politics clearly played a large role. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm not equating "unusual" with "terrorism". What I'm saying is: just because one outside source has a POV that something is unusual, that doesn't mean that we need to list it. For a less emotionally-charged label, lets take Comic strips considered stupid. I could probably find a whole rash of outside, reliable sources that were of the opinion that various comic strips were dumb, but that doesn't mean we need to reflect that POV.--Aervanath (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk is cheap. Here's a stack of books about unusual place names that I found in a minute of searching. You won't find your comic strip idea so easy to source.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This list is well-sourced and notable. The subject is not inherently POV; as LinguistAtLarge suggests, perhaps the page could be renamed, or otherwise modified to make it NPOV, but that is an editing issue and is outside the scope of AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual personal names

AfDs for this article:
List of unusual personal names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 17.</admin><editor> I personally feel that this list violates WP:NPOV and introduces systemic bias. What constitutes "unusual" is inherently not neutral. Aervanath (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: In addition to the above listed Afds, there was also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of unusual personal names.--Aervanath (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BTW, the above referenced AfD is quite insightful. If I cite policy here no more than the folks did back in 05, it's cause I agree completely with nominator. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV as what is "unusual" in one country or even region is usual or the norm in another. The "centralized discussion" is unpersuasive that consensus has supposedly changed for these subjective "unusual" lists, as many of the comments there boil down to "generally I think these are not a great idea but there's one I do like." Otto4711 (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is thoroughly backed by several dozen reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability. This is the English Wikipedia, and the definition of unusual is based on the speakers of this language as documented by reliable and verifiable sources, all of which conclusively rebuts claims of WP:NPOV or WP:OR. Alansohn (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons stated by Alansohn. This article is considerably better sourced than the average article on Wikipedia. Krakatoa (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what is an "unusual" name? Deciding what to include will be inherently subjective and therefore POV. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - referenced, and therefore, in this case, verifiable. It's not OR, and NPOV is followed, since "unusual" in this case is according to the sources. - jc37 07:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn. Whether something is unusual is determined by the sources and language is a non-issue since we're talking in the English language Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 10:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is nothing OR about such a list when the criterium is that these people are covered by sources because their name supposedly is unusual. We just combine information from multiple sources, which is what we do all over wikipedia. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but with most strict assessment of notability of persons with unusual personal names in article. A person with an unusual personal name is not notable per GNG. A person who has received however much media attention solely for having an unusual personal name is "ONEEVENT" still not notable. See: that wee lass in New Zealand; Napoleon Einstein--Shirt58 (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn and Reinoutr. Owen× ☎ 11:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per abundant sourcing and generally acceptable presentation. I trust the OR tag is being addressed in some meaningful way? -- Banjeboi 13:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but Delete, this article will never meet WP:NPOV and be properly sourced, the sources themseleves are whom the news reporters think that it's an unusual and interesting name. Opinionated articles and news sources aren't really reliable. Secret account 13:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV and a magnet for nonsense. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The general principle behind this article and similar ones was discussed recently(ish) at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things and the consensus of that discussion was that there is nothing in the policies cited above by those supporting deletion that states that "lists of unusual things" in themselves are deletion-worthy. To summarise the argument, it is that "unusual" is simply shorthand for "has been regarded by at least one reliable source as being unusual" and is a necessary shorthand for an article title - this was supported by a good majority of the contributors to the discussion. If there are other reasons why this particular article is deletion-worthy, let's discuss them. A discussion on issue which have already been resolved in the centralised discussion is not going to move us forward. SP-KP (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are numerous books and encyclopedias which list unusual names of this sort and so the notability of the topic is evident. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has an inherent NPOV problem since there is no objective criterion for "unusuallness". The references do not actually demonstrate that a name is unusual, but rather that some particular group or person thinks they are unusual. If kept, it would have to be renamed as "List of personal names various individuals believe are unusual", in which case it would clearly be an indiscriminate collection of information. Locke9k (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently unverifiable and unsourceable since there is no global standard for "unusuallness" (in fact many things that are unusual in one place are common in others) and we're supposed to be writing a globally focused encyclopedia. The article as it stands is sort of incoherent -- Armand Hammer's name is included because it was made up by his parents; "Christine Daaé" is included because she chose to name herself after a phantom of the opera character (name itself doesnt' seem weird to me); "Joker Arroyo" is particularly misplaced -- it's his nickname, and pinoys love silly nicknames. I used to know a brother and sister named Pepper and Ginger Tahanke, whose grandfather was an ex-supreme court justice named Ding Dong Tahanke -- and no one in the philippines thinks any of this is unusual at all; Lindsay Ann Crouse, which is about as plain vanilla a name as one can find, is included because her parents allegedly had an unusual reason for giving her this name; and on it goes.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It meets the notability standards. The article isn't defining what's unusual - it's merely commenting on places considered unusual. This is objective enough for me. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple available sources. Mencken has an entire chapter on it, and there are many later works. Individual dispubted entries can be discussed on the talk p. as usual. if we deleted all pages about which something was in dispute, there would be nothing of much importance left. I note the previous nomination was only 3 months ago. DGG (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is obviously no clear definition of what is 'usual' or 'normal', but there is a common knowledge of what definitely is or isnt. Few things on that list would be in the grey area - the name with 1000 letters, Dick Assman and Jesus Christ would all be considered 'unusual' by the majority of the population. At the very least, -- NPOV rules should help create a good article, not prevent a good one from being written. --Carbon Rodney 00:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not neutral as there is no standard for 'Unusual' It is simply a list of names that some people think funny. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources" doesn't actually hold much water here: I can find an infinite number of reliable sources naming people as terrorists, but yet no one would ever countenance a List of terrorists, because it's inherently NPOV. Just because something has been labeled by an outside source doesn't mean the label is NPOV, it just means we're reflecting the POV of the outside sources, which is not what we should be doing.--Aervanath (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment I would argue that the discussion has concatenated two discrete questions, the first question being "Should this article itself be in Wikipedia?" (the point of contention in this AfD), and a second question, "Will the article's content be completely unmanageable?".
    I wholeheartedly agree that the content of the article will always have ongoing WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTE and more problems. As Stifle so concisely said: it will be "a magnet for nonsense." Howsoever valid in and of themselves these discussion points are, they address that second question, which is not the point of contention in this AfD.
    So, back to first question: "Should this article itself be in Wikipedia?". With greatest respect to the (delete) participants, yes, there is no global or objective or [[WP:Unusual]] policy on what is "unusual". I would strongly suggest that what is "unusual" is independent of WP:POV. As Alansohn, Reinoutr, and other (keep) participants wrote, criteria for unusualness is extrinsic, and is to be founded on the reliable references for that something unusual.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as inherantly POV. What one source says is "unusual" another might say is perfectly normal. At best we can say "these names may or may not be unusual", and Wikipedia isn't a place for speculation. These names would need to be universally cited as unusual. Where I come from the name Mohammad is unusual, but its one of the most common names in the world. We can't be making judgement calls in our articles. A meta-topic such as "the compilation of lists of unusual personal names", while nonnotable, at least has a degree of objectivity to it as the topic would objectively look at both sides of the issue. Diving straight in to this topic is akin to having an article named "list of funny-looking people" and include everybody who was called funny-looking in the news. Can this work the other way? Can we have the article List of normal personal names and cite every name which has been called normal in reliable sources? That would be the case through the same line of reasoning by those arguing to keep this list, yet this example highlights the problems of POV articles. We can have one for each opinion on every topic, and none of them would amount to anything more than hearsay. ThemFromSpace 06:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Up to this point, the main arguments for deletion are that this is original research and that it violates a neutral point of view. For the OR claim, I would kindly ask someone to explain how this is original research. I do not see any "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position" in this list of names. If any of the names can't be sourced, they should be removed. The topic of "unusual names" is by no means original research, as a quick Gbooks, Gscholar, Gnews search for "unusual name" would seem to indicate. For the NPOV claim, I agree that adjectives like "unusual" can be inherently subjective, thus lending themselves to a non-neutral point of view. This is easily fixed by either renaming the article to something more specific, or simply defining what "unusual" means for the purposes of the list. Since other cultures and languages have very different criteria for "unusual" names, we also need to limit this to English-speaking cultures. (For example "Jesus" (Jesús) is actually a very common name in Spanish-speaking cultures.) So, first I would move the article to List of personal names considered unusual in English-speaking cultures (hopefully someone can think up a more concise title), and then in the lead sentence define the constraints of the list. Something like: "This is a list of personal names normally considered unusual in English speaking cultures. For the purposes of this list, an unusual name is defined as a name based on or the same as an organization, company, website, fictional character, product, place, or country, or names which are common words not normally used as first names in English, names that intentionally contain a meaningful phrase, names adopted or given as a form of political protest or for publicity reasons, names which read as a double entendre, names which have received media attention for their length (long or short), names based on numbers or symbols, and palindromic names". Giving the article clear constraints like that and requiring all entries to be sourced should take care of all the problems as I see it. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:57, 29 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 American_Doll_Posse#Track_listing. Redirect "without prejudice". Consider this a "no consensus" close combined with an editorial decision to redirect (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Rosey

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

Article makes no attempt to establish the notability of its subject. --Pisceandreams (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:05, 30 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 00:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

China (song)

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

No attempt has been made in the article to establish the notability of its subject. --Pisceandreams (talk) 03:47, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacquelyn Sylvan

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

Declining db-bio deletion. I don't think this one is going to make it, but the article creator is making a solid attempt and deserves a fair shot. The single hit for the subject at Google news[49] is not reliable, and there's no suggestion at Amazon or anywhere else I saw that any of her books meet our notability guidelines for books. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not established through secondary sources. 98.212.129.124 (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject does not appear to be notable, and I find the tone overly promotional. I failed to find any independent reviews of her books, and so must for the moment recommend deletion (or userfication pending improvements) Ohconfucius (talk) 09:53, 24 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Roda

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

Non-notable. Article is written by User:Andyroda, so there's an obvious conflict of interest here (he humbly refers to himself as a "musical prodigy"). Only six results on Google news. The first two (out of three) sections, in terms of sourcing, are derived from the subject's blog and a youtube video. I can't access the other sources at the moment, but thats probably because my connection is faltering at the moment, so maybe someone else can verify them. CyberGhostface (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article at the very least needs a serious rewrite. I attempted to work on it, but kept hitting edit conflicts. The use of YouTube as a secondary WP:RS is not good. The WP:POV problems are entirely out of control. I am reserving any more judgment until I have a chance to check the sources and the current edit wave calms down a bit. 98.212.129.124 (talk) 07:11, 23 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 16:26, 30 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 00:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The 24K was actually given to an album by the Kitty Girls who are most likely the recipients. Ref 7 which covers this makes no mention of his name at all, meaning he was not part of the receiving team for the award. It doesn't even confirm he had any part in it. The Billboard link is to that band too. Andy doesn't appear to have one. The link to the movie website doesn't mention him either. A lot of claims and a lot of links, but when you dig deeper the sources are either unreliable, not independent or not actually confirming the facts they're attached to. - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah

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

Procedural nomination. An editor has requested here that this article be deleted. To quote: "Hi. I would like to request the page for Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah is removed. There has been no Sri Lankan royal family since the 1600s, the country is in a serious civil war, and that someone has put a page up claiming there is a prince, when the only sources are dodgy websites, and a cheesy low budget BBC tv show, its in very poor taste and is quite offensive. The article does not further wikipedia as the person seems to have achieved no serious accomplishments, and his importance is not obvious as he has no political power, and no recognition in the sri lankan community, or the rest of the world for that matter. Frankly I think its disguisting self promotion - more of a personal page than an encyclopaedic entry." Skomorokh 02:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skomorokh I'm completely with you on this, but for your interest, the kings of Kandy (Kingdom of Kandy) ruled until 1815, so there has been a Sri Lankan royal family since the 1600s. But yes, there haven't been any kings or princes of Jaffna since 1619 CE yet Mr Kanagarajah still claims to be one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.141.100 (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just to clarify, I made this nomination on behalf of another editor, User:Shuggyg, who posted the above-quoted request for deletion here. Regards, Skomorokh 10:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There have been no kings of Jaffna since 1619 CE. It is absurd for someone to lay claim to a title that became extinct nearly 400 years ago. Furthermore, Sri Lanka is a Democratic Socialist Republic - and therefore does not recognise titles of nobility, let alone extinct ones from several centuries ago. In addition, Mr Kanagarajah has not been able to produce a complete family tree tracing father-son descent from any of the Arya Chakravarti kings, rendering his claim even more tenuous. An individual's decision to lay claim to a title that has ceased to exist for several centuries by constructing a website does not warrant a wikipedia article let alone an article that by its title appears to recognise his claim to the dubious title "Prince". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.165.55 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page is simple vanity. I would suggest the page should be renamed to Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah and should remain as a record of the vanity and embarrasing ego of one man, however I believe the issue is very sensitive due to the upheaval in Sri Lanka. This page has no robust evidentiary support, and appearing on a low budget BBC entertainment TV show alone is not noteworthy enough to warrant an encylopeadic entry.Shuggyg (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as risable and unintentionally amusing as the program was, it was a low-budget reality TV show originally broadcast on BBC3.
  • Furthermore, irrespective of whether or not Mr Kanagarajah warrants his own wikipedia page, I strongly suggest removing "Prince" from the page's title. As his claim to the title is highly controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.165.55 (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be nothing about him in the news- even specifically searching English-language sources from Sri Lanka. Nothing about him on Google book search either, despite the fact that there has been a lot written by academics about the civil war and upheaval in Sri Lanka. Non-notable pretender. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, this article is a constant target of self-promoting vandalism, look at the current version of the page. No matter how many times admins revert changes, individuals with an agenda vandalise the page: styling Mr Kanagarajah as "H.R.H." and replacing neutral phrases like "claims to be" to "is" and other such nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.138.253 (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is largely the same reason I gave at the last AFD, which concluded without consensus. There are only ~50 unique google hits for this guy, and the only remotely good sources are a biogrphy from from The Nation, an advertisement from The Independent, and the reality show mentioned here many times. I don't believe being on a reality show alone makes him notable, so the only source that might demonstrate his notability is The Nation. But given that newspaper's greater than normal biases, the complete lack of transparency on its editorial process, and some very questionable publications it has produced, I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. So there has been no substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. There has been substantial coverage in one dubious source, a low budget entertainment piece from another source, and an advertisement from a third source. These are apparently the only times this man has ever been mentioned outside of blogs and his own writings, or trivial lists of "exiled royalty" on unreliable websites. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:00, 25 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 02:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just Like That (song)

Just Like That (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Unreleased demo song. Paul75 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the unique nature of this song makes it notable in my opinion, even if it did not chart. -Drdisque (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is an interesting case, although I am inclined to agree with LinguistAtLarge, regarding keep for now. There is clearly a lot of information about this song, and if it can be sourced to multiple reliable sources, then the topic meets WP:NOTE. Given the amount of information in the article, I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and presume that at least a portion of it can be reliably sourced to independent sources. Rlendog (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is incredibly poorly sourced, with two references for the entire article. It fails dismally on all other WP:SONG requirements, and the song is already covered in some detail on ABBA unreleased songs. I don't think there is any real justification for a seperate article for an unreleased, demo track. Paul75 (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G11 by User:LadyofShalott. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Razorfunfish

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

Non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. Prod tag removed/challenged. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:24, 23 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse Nation

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


Declined CSD-spam, still doesn't look notable to me. MBisanz talk 07:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --GedUK  10:58, 24 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 02:23, 23 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. Wizardman 16:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Mathematics Championship

Washington State Mathematics Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school event on a local level. I'm sure each state has something like this, and it doesn't seem to have any notability. One Google hit for "washington state mathematics championship," 113 for "washington state math championship." either way (talk) 02:22, 23 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 03:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To those arguing that similar competitions are mentioned in list articles: Notability doesn't apply to mentions in the contents of articles, such as lists. It does apply when deciding whether to have a separate article for something, and it's a higher standard than the standard for inclusion as a mention in the content of an article, which is only verifiability rather than both notability and verifiability that is required for a separate article. Gigs (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Blaine High School (Washington). The subject is not notable enough to warrant a standalone article. However, the competition seems to be very important in the context of the school. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your suggestion will not work, as Blaine High School nor the Blaine School District has an major affiliation with this contest, other than providing the space. This competition is also hosted by Conoco Phillips, but a merge into that article will also be futile. -download | sign! 19:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is NOT a ballot and the determination is according to guidelines, not number of "votes", this is not a vote. If the subject of the article satisfies guidelines for notability and verifiability, it stays, if not, it is deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication of any possible notability. subnational level competitions of his sort are not notable under most circumstances, unless there is very clear sourcing to indicate something particularly important. DGG (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Delete. No independent sources have been provided. There are no Google News hits and hardly any Google web hits. Hence, notability has not been established. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general notability guideline states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I'd be glad to userfy this article until I or someone else is capable of finding the sources. However, there is no question whether this contest is notable. This is not one of the many local competitions in Washington nor a mere school event. -download | sign! 03:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I'm seeing a lot of logical fallacies regarding votes to keep, but no verifiable evidence of notability. It's easy to say "If article X is still on Wikipedia, than this should be too." But that isn't how this works. Not every article is the same, and as someone else has made mention of, there is a difference between not being cited properly, and not being notable. In the case of the former, verifiability can easily be established with some edits and proper citation. In the latter, it's not going to change if there's still no reliable 3rd party coverage to establish that it is notable in an encyclopedic format. No one here is disputing that this math competition is important to the participants, as that much is obvious. But importance to a select few are not what makes this relevant to anyone outside of the article's immediate scope. JogCon (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - fails Wikipedia:Notability because it is not notable enough in the context of a school event, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources because none of this article is sourced. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Involves enough people to be considered notable. JamesMLane t c 12:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many does it involve? That's not mentioned in the article. What is the minimum standard for number of people involved to be considered notable? either way (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This year's contest involved over 4000 mathletes total in high school and middle school levels, and these are top mathletes selected from each school district, so it should be considered notable. Notability is not quanitified; however, this meets the standards of having enough coverage. -download | sign! 19:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where are the third-party, reliable sources that prove this? Cunard (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is the problem I'm having. Because of today's popular culture, one can hardly find any sources regarding this topic, but can find sources on thousands of bands with hardly any skill at all. Are these bands really that much more notable than this math competition? Back to the point: I am working to find third party sources, so if this ends up getting deleted I'll userfy the article. -download | sign! 23:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "this meets the standards of having enough coverage" You say this over and over, yet, there is no coverage shown anywhere. The only two references prove existence, not notability. Having the name of the event on the list of about 50 state competitions for mathematics does not count as "coverage." either way (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The sources mentioned are passing mentions. The championship is listed in several directories - this does not confirm any notability. Remember, existence does not prove notability. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as there are no reliable sources that document this event in detail. None of the "Keep" !votes above have really addressed this point to my satisfaction. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Regretful Delete The problem is not notability. The problem is verifiability. If we can verify the claims regarding attendance and the like, I'd support keeping in a heartbeat. My problem is that searching Google and Gnews have failed to produce sources that can verify. I support userfication upon deletion and no prejudice against recreation should such sources materialize. RayTalk 03:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability and reliable sources. Reywas92Talk 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punkradiocast.com (now Punk Radio Cast)

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

Claims of listenership are unreferenced. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. There are some google hits for this website but most news stories are about bands who have appeared here, not about the station itself. Is this streaming radio station notable? Rtphokie (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not understand why the LARGEST Streaming PUNK ROCK Website would be Questioned for Notability. The One who has questioned that also stats that they have found several third party links from Bands that have been played on the site. Also as for 3rd party coverage Check the section entitled PRC in MEDIA there you will find Stories in AP which is a Notable music industry Publication. Minklinkdink (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:18, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Believe (2006)

I Believe (2006) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacks notability, lacks references. Not finding any reviews or indication that this album has charted. RadioFan (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an album doesn't need to chart to be notable. It just needs Independent, reliable sources, same as any other article. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't believe some of those sources are independent. One is a myspace page, another is their website, and the last is a christian rock blog. The other source is one profiling up and coming bands, which proves a lack of notability. Tej68 (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing !vote to Keep on the basis that I found two independent, reliable sources[54][55] stating that the album won an award. I also have a source that the song, I Believe, made it to #7 on a NZ chart. It's unfortunately pay-per-view. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*Keep The Album won a New Zealand Music Award for "Best Gospel / Christian Album" [56] so that is probably enough in of itself. I do, however, believe the article is exaggerating - still looking on the "spanned hits" comments. Also per WP:NALBUMS the bar for albums by notable groups (as is the case here) is pretty low. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Album debuted at #7 in NZ [57]. err, I can't read - wrong album :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be their next album, Live At World's End, friend. It does help prove that this band is notable, even if only in New Zealand, though. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Neither the album, nor any single charted. Although the album apparently came close (was listed as a "heat seeker", meaning it was a hot new release, but not with enough sales to actually make the top 40.) I have updated the article to accurately reflect the available info (i.e. removed "hits" and other fluff) but left the "best selling Christian album" bit b/c I can neither confirm nor deny that part at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:15, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muddy River Nightmare Band

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

Article that asserts significance for a band, claiming tours of US and Japan. I am unable to locate reliable sources that verify this. Google news shows they had gigs in Seattle and Portland, and even Vegas,but not US tours. The paucity of news hits does not even show local notability. The article creator has an outside connection with the band which complicates the thing, viz http://www.sorenwinslow.com/MRNB/Bio.asp and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muddy_River_Nightmare_Band&action=history Furthermore, [MUDDY|RIVER|NIGHTMARE|BAND[&sql=11:jcfixqedld0e~T2 Allmusic does not give any info that shows notability. Nor does Billboard. No evidence of two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels. The thing has been speedied twice and then I prodded. I am not satisfied with the PROD, and am sending to AFD. Dlohcierekim 02:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to mention nothing in books or scholar, either. Dlohcierekim 03
57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 Done Dlohcierekim 23:16, 23 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 03:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Women Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a content fork and no references or indication of the notability of this topic is given. I'm not really a fan of these gender/race/nationality split lists, especially in cases like this. Why not Canadians or Germans or posthumous inductees. Hell, why not "Metal acts inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame", since it has received far more coverage. We have a List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees (and it's a pretty good list, if I do say so myself), so why are splits needed?

Also, I believe the lead misrepresents the article. It declares that it is notable because "only a relative handful of women have been inducted", thus insinuating that women have been snubbed. This is untrue since almost every year has seen at least one inductee and is 50 really a handful? In fact, I've read articles that say that too many undeserving women acts are inducted. -- Scorpion0422 01:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 02:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 02:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appropriate list article, and more complete than the main article. Cf. 1990, the Platters. Good evidence why we need it. DGG (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Taylor isn't listed in the RRHOF profile as being inducted (you know, following what's verifiable), which is why she wasn't previously included. I think lists like these set terrible precedents, especially since absoloutely no proof of notability is given. Why not create articles for every gender/nationality/ethnicity/religion/etc. for every Hall of Fame or award? Let's leave lists like that to fansites and official websites and keep wikipedia to articles about notable topics rather than a list of what is basically trivia.
    • At the very least, it should be merged into the main article (I could set up a system which identifies the female inductees, but I really think it's pointless). -- Scorpion0422 03:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't tell whether Zola Taylor was or wasn't inducted as a member of the Platters. For some groups, the Hall of Fame web site specifically identifies who the inductees were, but apparently not for the Platters. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the citation on the site includes her. [58]DGG (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You can't have list for every single different type of band inducted into the hall of fame. This would set a precedent for a variety of ridiculous lists being compiled. Tej68 (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly do we need this article when you could just indicate on the List of inductees which ones are women, so much easier. It also makes more sense.Tej68 (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strawman. A split for gender is nothing near as ridiculous as the list you're suggesting here. - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content fork. The HOF inductees list is more than sufficient. There is no compelling reason for this level of atomization. We could, after all, have "list of jews" "list of christians" "list of lesbians" "list of rockers under 5'10" " in the HOF, and they would be equally ridiculous and damaging. This is trivia.
  • So? How does the Grammys splitting their categories by gender relate to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? Why not start a "women in Rock and Roll" page instead? The Grammies also split their awards by genre, so should there by "Reggae artists inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" or "Hip hop artists inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" (in fact, the latter has generated a lot more controversy and discussion, but it still is rather unnecessary. -- Scorpion0422 23:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy to debate the inclusion of these pages should another editor choose to create them. )Genre and gender both provide distinction within award-giving in the recording industry.) However, I would prefer to debate the viability of this specific page. The assertion that the inclusion of hip-hop artists has created more controversy than the inclusion of female artists is unfounded and undocumented. the exclusion of both categories of artists has been fodder for the press. I doubt one could assert the disinclusion of one group as greater than the other. --Rytch303 (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the raw data for this list is (mostly) available in the original Rock Hall article, grouping inductees by gender brings a lens that illuminates the subject differently. Its usefulness is distinct from the original article because this grouping promotes analysis of a trend, highlighting the rate at which female artists were inducted. It served me as a useful roster that I didn’t have to recreate on my own.

Specifically, I’m a grad student currently working on a paper about the historiography of Rock and related genres. I referred to this list several times for the section about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame’s role in canonizing who rates as a “Rock Legend”. Gender absolutely matters in Rock and Roll, so much so that the comparison to other subcategories is insulting. Gender is a primary lens through which artists in the Rock genre are regarded, given the nature of rock culture and history. When and how the Rock Hall chooses to (or chooses not to) induct female artists has crucial influence on the perception that women are significant in shaping the music. That influence makes this list noteable.

Several other “Women in…” articles have been created as companions to the list of all honorees (List of Olympic medalists in athletics (women), List of female state governors in the United States, List of U.S. military vessels named after women...). Actually, what I would like to see in the article is a broader discussion of controversies surrounding the in/exclusion of women from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The list implies that there is a significant discrepancy, but it could flesh that idea out more frankly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndergirl (talk • contribs) 02:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User blocked as a sock puppet of Rytch303 (talk · contribs).
In the case of List of Olympic medalists in athletics (women), it's a length issue. There are so many medalists, that the page had to be split and gender was the most logical choice. There is also a List of Olympic medalists in athletics (men). In List of female state governors in the United States is a list where that data is not available on any other single page. In this case, it pretty much recreates the content already on a single page (AKA content forking). -- Scorpion0422 02:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come again? You also have to remember that being Governor of a state is considerably more notable than being in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Like I said above, in the case of the female governors, there is no other single list, so it's not a fork and does have uses. -- Scorpion0422 22:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you defining notability? That sounds like a specious argument. --Rytch303 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Per the notability guideline. At the same time, this page is content forking (read the last paragraph of "What forking is") and it does not meet the requirements of the stand-alone list guideline because it pretty much just recreates the content of another page adds very little in the way of original content. Would you be willing to accept the page being redirected to the list of inductees if I put together a system to highlight female inductees? Although I really dislike that idea because even if awards are split by gender (for obvious reasons), the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is not. And this article suggests that female inductees in the Hall of Fame than any other division and giving it undue weight. -- Scorpion0422 23:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would the page look like if notations were made for gender? --Rytch303 (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't comprehend what you posit as "obvious reasons". -Rytch303 (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gender is a significant category in the recording industry, particularly in the arena of award-giving. Other major industry awards such as the Grammys and the American Music Awards are doled out according to gender (not race, national origin, sexual orientation, or other qualities based on the artists themselves that have been suggested by others on this page). As there are separate categories for male artists and female artists in many genres, the recording industry itself must then see gender as a defining category for contemporary music. Similarly, major music magazines and television networks (Rolling Stone, MTV, and VH1) have created notable content around this theme as well. Therefore, the significance of gender (already made notable by the recording industry itself) is reinforced in cultural discourse through articles and programming which further define the unique relationship of gender to contemporary music-making and the recording industry.

While the Rock Hall itself does not make use of gender categorization in its own awards, the fact that gender has become a defining category within the industry means its awards are not immune from interpretation along gender lines. While the gendered structure of the Grammy Awards can create something of a balance between male and female winners, the Hall of Fame Inductees are overwhelmingly male, thereby creating an interesting series of questions about how the Hall itself interprets (or doesn’t interpret) gender as a salient category within the recording industry. (The grad student writing above speaks to this point quite well.) It should, however, be noted that while the Rock Hall does not separate awards by gender, it does promote various programming at its museum around the theme of Women in/and Rock.

As a few editors have argued that this list paves the way for (indeed) ridiculous lists such as lesbians, or Canadians, or Jews, I think the point to remember is that the recording industry itself does not single out categories such as these in terms of award-giving. Gender, however, is a category that has been ensconced into its award-giving history, and therefore makes a valid point of departure from the main list of Hall of Fame inductees.

I have also contacted the Rock Hall (by email) to clarify the question about Zola Taylor as their website indeed leaves the matter up for interpretation. --Rytch303 (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to contact them in the past and gotten no response. So, there are the Juno Awards, which are pretty much solely for Canadian artists, so does not indicate a significant division? So, using your logic, we could start a list of Canadians inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. As well, this isn't an article about women in the Hall of Fame, it's just a content fork and could easily be redirected back to the list. If indicating gender is really necessary, I can put together a system that would indicate women. -- Scorpion0422 15:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument only concerns the significance of the relationship between gender, the recording industry, and contemporary music-making (as posited by the industry itself). If someone else would like to create another page of Canadians (or Muslims or Asian-Americans), I would be happy to debate its merits. However, for now, it is only this page which is up for debate. The argument that this page opens up the possibility for other (possibly not as appropriate) sub-lists is a tendentious one that assumes the purpose of this page (or other pages like it) have a political motivation instead of one grounded in already extant definitions and strictures made by the recording industry. --Rytch303 (talk) 21:11, 25 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 per CSD-G11. لennavecia 15:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Gimenez Norfleet

Stella Gimenez Norfleet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cross-wiki spam created by CPrat (talk · contribs). Non notable per WP:CREATIVE. No reliable independent secondary source available. Original research. Deleted from French and Spanish Wikipedias. Request for deletion: Portuguese. AntiCross (talk) 01:43, 23 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, Nakon 05:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PSEmu

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

Non-notable eumulator. No third party sources, no indications that it is notable. TJ Spyke 21:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PSEmu Pro was later discontinued, though its plugin system is still used by all major Playstation emulators today — what do you mean no indication of notability? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 01:41, 23 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 consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Exponent Newsletter

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

Non-notable subject User234 (talk) 01:38, 23 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) 00:16, 30 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 00:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How LIEAP and WAP Work Together

How LIEAP and WAP Work Together (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Statement about how two organizations work together, which seems more appropriate for listing on the individual organization pages, as this particular part of the article is not more than three sentences. I would have proposed for CSD, but it appears there isn't a category for this. Plastikspork (talk) 01:38, 23 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. There is plenty of vote-stacking on both sides, and not much of an attempt to establish a clear consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Grundy (song)

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

Non-notable song; fails criteria at WP:NSONGS. fuzzy510 (talk) 05:31, 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 01:34, 23 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. After reviewing this and the previous 2 discussions, it appears that consensus hasn't changed (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Brown

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

This might be a tough one, but I don't see established notability. Subject is a Philadelphia ophthalmologist and 2x unsuccessful candidate for Congress, neither of which are enough to establish notability. So, per WP:BIO there must be published, independent, and reliable secondary source material published about the subject. There are some such articles, but they are all pretty weak and in the context of the subject's failed political candidacy, and thus, per WP:BIO not enough in of themselves enough to establish notability. --A. Gorilla (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:From reading past AFDs, I see the subject published "120 medical articles," but there's no evidence that these are from peer-reviewed articles. A. Gorilla (talk) 01:27, 23 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) 00:15, 30 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. Listed for 13 days with no comments. No prejudice against a speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace (talker)

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

This article cites no sources, and I can't find any third party sources (everything on a google news search seems related to a football team, not the talker). Without them, this doesn't meet WP:N/WP:WEB. In other words, if we actually wrote this article properly, by summarizing sources rather than writing our own opinions, there'd apparently be nothing to write. The last AFD was 3+ years ago, before modern notability guidelines existed. Chiliad22 (talk) 01:22, 23 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) 00:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time (Frankie J album)

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

I can't find anything in reliable sources about this future album, so I don't think it meets notability criteria at the moment. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 01:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Delete as per above. No notability and fails WP:CRYSTAL. Renaissancee (talk) 01:57, 30 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; could possibly pass WP:PROF #1, 8. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Kegel

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

Interim president of a college, no other citeable facts. MBisanz talk 00:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:PROF: [60] "Dr. Charles H. Kegel served I.S.U. with honor and distinction for 25 years as professor of English, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, Dean of Faculties, Acting I.S.U. President, and Academic Vice President." JJL (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PROF is about academic honors; being dean, president, etc. are administrative positions. The footnote in WP:PROF that suggests otherwise is misguided. It may be that there are actually reliable sources about Kegel, but there is no sign that his academic credentials would meet the standards listed at WP:PROF. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment per Criterion 6, he seems to qualify. JJL (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that's exactly what I am saying. "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society." Dean and president are not academic posts, footnote 13 notwithstanding. It's questionable whether every administrator of every academic instrituion is notable, but certainly they are not all notable for their academic achievements, which is what WP:PROF is supposed to be about. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I'm with Carl on this, acting president for one year doesn't pass WP:PROF in my eyes, The ISU english dept awards a scholarship to one undergrad a term in his name [61], and the Liberal arts building is named after him [62]. I think these go towards WP:BIO rather than WP:PROF. Here is a Google Scholar search. I don't think it shows he passes WP:PROF (h-index 3), but the publications are late 50s/early 60s and in a discipline I know too little to judge. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The scholarship is named after him because he established it in his will; this is what they mean by "This award derives from the Charles Kegel estate ..." I am very interested by the building, though. There are not that many buildings on a college campus, so having one named after you is some sort of award. Unfortunately this all predates the web. I wonder if I can find the local newspaper in a database. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WeakKeep "Acting president" can mean many things, but in this case the additional offices show notability. Next step is no find his academic work, because even for what at the time was not a first rate university, one does not get to be full professor without a something: WorldCat has what would nowadays be considered a marginal amount [63].DGG (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A Google book search shows that his work on Salinger is impactful, possibly enough for WP:PROF #1. I don't think Google scholar is the right tool for finding citations to humanities studies from the 1950s. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Also possibly meets WP:PROF criterion #8 (editor-in-chief of established journal). He seems to be close to meeting several of the criteria, which one could argue suggests that he meets at least the more general criterion #1.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - from the google scholar [64]]. Are they his? He was professor for over 2 decades, V.P. (Does not matter he was acting or something, he played the position an administrator). I will say "Yes". I'm having fun here.

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the GS results are his. DGG (talk) 03:09, 27 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) 00:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today with Pat Kenny

Today with Pat Kenny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
RTÉ News at One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable radio shows, I can't find anything on Google to suggest they are particularly notable radio shows. I'm sure I have seen a guideline somewhere regarding shows like this, but I can't find it anywhere. Anyway, I feel they fail WP:N. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:49, 9 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 00:08, 16 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 00:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough. COuld always be boldly merged to RTÉ Radio 1. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Quick note on News at one: really should be moved to title such as "News at One" (RTÉ radio) or something along those lines. Technically it isn't called "RTÉ News at One" and generates a lot more ghits if RTÉ is included outside the title. But regarding merging: both are notable in their own right. Haven't had much of a chance to expand the articles, but one problem I have in the time I have given to looking for online sources regarding the early days of either programme is trying to wade through all the thousands of passing mentions. Another problem, with the News at One especially, is trying to find the online equivalents of the paper sources I know exist (I've read them :)). For example, the programme, when it was launched in the 60s, was the first news programme on Irish radio of its type, rather than a straight news bulletin and has been regarded as the model for later programmes; there is a brief mention of the fact in an obituary of the man credited with the introduction of the programme [65], but there are much more detailed paper sources out there. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:44, 28 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 per sources added. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Beta Alpha

Alpha beta alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

National fraternity with only one active chapter. Fails WP:ORG, no third party sources. Google turns up nothing related, not even their personal website - but several unrelated fraternities with similar Greek letters. I'm just not seeing the notability. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you finding those sources? - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google, as usual. :-) I added the links that looked most notable/reliable to the exlink section.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nice job on finding that, I sometimes forget about Google books. We need a few more though. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Alpha Beta Alpha for correct capitalization. There do appear to be some sources available to confirm the historical existence of this organization. I suspect that the organization went into decline due to the fact that library science is now studied primarily at the graduate level instead of the undergraduate level. I will try to improve the article in the meantime. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page has been moved as per Metropolitan to make the title MoS compliant. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 13:31, 16 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 00:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I didn't adjust my comments properly. It's not. It's one chapter as you note. Sorry about the consfusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:59, 26 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farstone Technology

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

Vanity page, no assertion of notability Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:44, 16 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 00:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work on the spam trimming, much improved! I'm still concerned about notability though, the references you've provided all read like rehashed press releases, so my original recommendation has to stand Delete doesn't pass notability TurningWork (talk) 14:17, 23 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 01:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Stebbins

John C. Stebbins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable Dan D. Ric (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only inline references in this article are two links to companies created by the subject and added by User:Johnstebbins. Previously there had been links to company websites and a youtube video, these have been removed by another user.

Delete. Fails to meet WP:CORP. Eddie.willers (talk) 16:04, 16 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 00:18, 23 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, content has been merged. GlassCobra 12:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Poems by Rita Dove

AfDs for this article:
List of Poems by Rita Dove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page does not meet requirements for stand alone articles keystoneridin! (talk) 06:43, 16 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 00:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Rita Dove. No prejudice against recreation at some later date, though a format-sorted bibliography might be better. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've gone ahead and merged the content (singular, haha) to Rita Dove. I'd perform a non-administrative closure here, but the AfD is not yet a week old, I don't know how to do it, and I don't know if my standing is good enough. Even if this were kept I'd merge it, boldly. Whether a redirect is in place, I'll leave that to others--I don't think there is a necessity for that, but there is a history here, even though it's shorter than the bill of rights of Elbonia. BTW, it's a shame that the Rita Dove article is in such a poor state, given that she's one of the poetic powerhouses of the US. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 23 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hayward Davenport

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

Lacks claim to significance. Exhibiting in one Royal Academy show does not constitute notability. Possible WP:COI issue. JNW (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - three minutes after I restored it, that's fast! I'll be working to improve the article to satisfy notability concerns over the next five days, but won't be able to do it tomorrow as I have pressing real-life concerns. Best, – Toon(talk) 01:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The speed was coincidental--we both noticed and were working on this at the same time. As stated above, I think there are several concerns. If there are sources supporting notability, I'll be happy to see this become a keeper. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:16, 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, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:01, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 23 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayan name (moved to Ayan (name) )

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

Neologism Bothpath (talk) 21:44, 16 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 00:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see an encyclopedia entry here. Punkmorten (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only ref given is not a reliable source. I've looked in A Dictionary of First Names (ISBN 0-19-211651-7), which has a supplement on common names in the Arab world and a supplement on common names of the Indian subcontinent, and "Ayan" is listed in neither supplement, so I am unable to verify this information. —Angr 18:22, 28 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 consensus is that the subject does not meet guidelines for inclusions. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

André Harris

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

Non-notable Bothpath (talk) 21:52, 16 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 00:14, 23 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 Blonde Charity Mafia. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Pyle

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

Notability. As seen from the fact that nothing links to this article. Sophie Pyle is not yet notable. Perhaps if this show airs, but it's more likely, this would be a good sub set of a Blonde Charity Mafia article. I wouldn't oppose a merge Arteros (talk) 21:23, 19 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 00:14, 23 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autovogue

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

Lack of reliable sources. —Emufarmers(T/C) 14:51, 16 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) 00:10, 23 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 Charles Bingham, 4th Earl of Lucan. MBisanz talk 02:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Bingham, Countess of Lucan

Cecilia Bingham, Countess of Lucan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable wife of a peer. I don't want to claim that it is a copy, however note that it resembles the article about her husband Charles Bingham, 4th Earl of Lucan very closely. Phoe (talk) 12:33, 16 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) 00:09, 23 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antônio Marcos de Azevedo

Antônio Marcos de Azevedo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable footballer, never played in fully-pro league Matthew_hk tc 11:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you created this -why not Wikipedia:CSD#G7? Stu.W UK (talk) 12:39, 16 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) 00:08, 23 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 01:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Bernardes Rodrigues da Silva

Adriano Bernardes Rodrigues da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable footballer, he never palyed in fully-pro league Matthew_hk tc 11:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you created the page and nobody else has made a notable contribution, why not request speedy deletion under Wikipedia:CSD#G7? Stu.W UK (talk) 12:35, 16 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) 00:08, 23 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 per availability of reliable sources. Someone should try to add them in, though. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. BACS is undeniably notable, and the page on the BACS website [70] seems to indicate that VocaLink is a major partner. On the other hand, this isn't strictly speaking _third-party_ coverage. If some can be found, it should be added. Tevildo (talk) 14:42, 18 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) 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep. VocaLink is a subject worth having an article on - it is a commercial company but it does provide the FPS which is notable. This "article" however is more like a glossy pamphlet from the PR firm. What the heck does "This is complemented by value-added Managed Services that leverage industry expertise and technical capabilities" even mean!!? Grible (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC) (oops)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Limbo of the Lost. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic Studios

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

Nominated as failing Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Commercial_organizations for being a small (3 people) company that made only one videogame. I propose that although the Limbo of the Lost Controversy is notable, the company didn't gain notability, under an analogous argument to WP:ONEVENT. Habanero-tan (talk) 08:42, 16 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) 00:07, 23 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 W. E. Blackhurst. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Riders of the Flood"

AfDs for this article:
"Riders of the Flood" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A drama with a local theme being performed at one location. No evidence of notability for the play or for the book from which it is derived. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:40, 16 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) 00:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to W. E. Blackhurst--which is also a woefully underdeveloped and unreferenced article, but whose subject is probably (more) notable. I've trimmed the fat a bit from both articles and could have cut more: reliable third-party sources are needed, and plenty of copyediting esp. for tone. But the author seems notable to me, the play not (there wasn't a single reference in the article for the play that could be called in-depth coverage in a reliable source). If the author of both articles is following this: the bit about the forest may be true and relevant, but not without discussion in reliable sources--and without referencing WP articles: Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --GedUK  07:26, 30 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 02:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hannon

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

Non notable gaelic footballer - does not appear to have played any games of note at a national level, with his career based on his own local club. No references and many of the claims appear to be unverifiable. The last line is telling "he did not feature in any of the McKenna cup matches". Note: The previous afd on Michael Hannon appears to be for a different(?) Michael Hannon, with the result Delete TheClashFan (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 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) 00:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McBride Secondary School

McBride Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Andrewrp (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. Secondary schools and high schools are not the same thing. - Mgm|(talk) 10:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you base that, however, in Canada the term "Secondary School" is used almost universally and is synonymous with "high school", as they typically run from grades 8-12. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, 8-12 means it includes the grades 9-12, which is what the US calls a high school. Splitting hairs here. tedder (talk) 18:05, 23 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 02:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animarathon

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

Is there a different notability threshold for anime conventions? I would say that an event which attracts only 1000 participants is bound to be non-notable on a world scale. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:57, 16 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) 00:02, 23 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) 11:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pake

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

Delete a software that fails WP:GNG; sourced to the project's pages - as near as I can tell from the text, the software was deprecated after release 1.1 so it seems short-lived and unlikely to have achieved the notability required to have an article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:02, 16 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) 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:09, 30 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_23&oldid=285667304"