Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 30: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:31, 30 May 2009

< 29 May	31 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep main article, merge the others. Clear consensus that the protests as a whole are notable, but there is consensusal articles that the additional articles are unnecessary - I'll enact this by redirecting the articles, but the material will be available in the history for merging Fritzpoll (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Tamil protests

Group of articles nominated for deletion on the grounds of notability. Essentially cover a series of protests held over a brief period of time. From what I can gather, none of them have had no medium or long term impact, and generally very little short term impact besides what is normally expected from a protest. Sourcing is predominately from organisations with a vested interest in the protests. Wikipedia is not a news source, nor is it a location to detail every single non notable protest associated with a particular issue. While thcoordination of the Tamil communities across many countries is commendable, the protests are not collectively recognised as being important on an international basis. These articles should be deleted and merged into Sri Lankan Civil War, or at the very least merged into one main article Guycalledryan (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages on the grounds of notability:

Strong Keep, refer to your talk page, User:Guycalledryan. --Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 13:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the articles into a single article While I don't think we need seperate articles to document the protests in each country, they were notable enough to merit a Wikipedia entry. The protests may not have drawn much covarage in US, but they did garner significant coverage in Canada and Sri Lanka. We're also trying our best not to clutter the Sri Lankan Civil War article, so a merge there wouldn't be the best option.

The nominators response to a question on his talk page "In contrast, the Tea Party protests received incredible amounts of media and political coverage" shows he's clearly refering to American media, whereas Wikipedia is supposed to contain a balanced world view. Just cos an event isn't considered important enough for Fox to give 24/7 coverage, doesn't mean it isn't important. These protest played a significant role in the end game of the Sri Lankan conflict

Also, note to closing admin, Eelamstylez77 appears to be canvassing to ask editors to vote to keep these articles. [1] --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for "canvassing." It was not meant to be that way, just a notification to other editors. I also didn't know it was prohibited in Wikipedia. Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 18:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

support all of Snowolf's argumentation. WP should strive to present a world wide view, including smaller countries. Merge all of those articles together seems the best way to assure this coverage without overcharging the SL civil war article. I also noted the canvassing. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of non-notability is ridiculous. Significant coverage in reliable sources is abundant here; keep and let the decision of how many articles are needed be settled once they have matured to their natural length. Skomorokh 17:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Please look here [2] and the articles need improvement the Tamil Protests outside the UK parlaiment for example are notable here there are more then 800000 hits [3] CNN ,BBC and virtually every major network has followed them and these are not a single day event.Please look here [4].Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the closing admin may note the canvassing. Amalthea 16:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of 2009 Tamil protests in Norway and had the page on watch and hence would have noticed even if User:Eelamstylez77 had not commented on my talkpage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best Merge into one article. None of the protests are all that notable and not enough to warrant separate articles. TJ Spyke 17:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage in mainstream media. Taprobanus (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the closing admin may note the canvassing. Amalthea 16:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It has a lot of attention in the media. It's better to keep the articles as it is. Each article is long anyway. The protests are still going and the articles will expand. If we merge it, then that article would be very long, which would be eventually have to be made into separate articles like it was before. Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the closing admin may note the canvassing. Amalthea 16:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I wrote the article for the 2009 British Tamil Protest [5]. I don't need User:Eelamstylez77 to convince me, he just informed me. Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2009 Tamil protests in Norway, no opinion about the rest. The notion that "None of the protests are all that notable" is simply not correct - not close. Punkmorten (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep main article, especially in view of ensuing events, merge the protests in .... articles to main one. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep These articles should be kept as is. No need to merge them because they are from different countries and different people are involved John harvey125 (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or at best Merge into one article. None of the protests are all that notable and not enough to warrant separate articles.99.245.37.46 (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you felt that way then why did you even bother editing it in the first place? Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 23:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non sequitur.99.245.37.46 (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge together - coverage in Canada certainly has been extensive and the protests have reached the point where a member of parliament is facing some heat for being at one. My understanding is that coverage and impact in other countries--apart from the USA--has been likewise extensive. //roux 18:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
conditional Keep/Merge smaller articles into main - I'm not familiar with the coverage of the other demonstrations around the world, but the Tamil protests in Toronto, Canada were a major news item for several weeks. I'm of the opinion that the 'protests in canada' article is strong enough to stand on its own, along with any others from the list of a comparable size. However, I think that all the articles in this series are in dire need of cleanup if they are to remain. POV is a major concern for me with these articles (along with most articles around this conflict), as the main contributor seems to be one of the protesters. I will admit that Eelamstylez77 has done made a very honest effort to respond to POV criticisms and has improved the Canadian article accordingly. I think the style of the articles also needs to be improved if the result here is keep. Updates are also needed since the 'end' of the civil war has changed the situation drastically. These articles have potential if the POV is kept in check. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with the assumptions made by the nominator. The protests in Canada, particularly in Toronto, were the subject of extensive media coverage for weeks, and gave rise to a number of debates over the appropriate scope of peaceful protests and how a multicultural country like Canada should address issues such as the civil war in Sri Lanka and the record of organizations such as the Tamil Tigers. The article on the Canadian protests is already sufficiently long that it would be inappropriate to merge the Canadian article - the articles on the protests in Norway, India, the U.K. and Australia are far less well developed, and I would support merging the Norway, India, U.K. and Australia articles into the general article until such time (if ever) that they are better developed and can stand on their own. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all articles,as protests they are notable just like tianamen square etc --Icemansatriani (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole.99.245.37.46 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No.--Icemansatriani (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 Tamil Protests as notable as the Tiananmen Square protests? Uh, yeah - hyperbole.99.245.37.46 (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP address user, I wonder what part of the world you come from. Its about time you read some 'world news' on news sites and newspapers. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? WP:CIV, if you please. Read the site rules if you need refreshing. And what news organizations you know of have compared the Tamil protests to Tiananmen Square? LOL. Please.99.245.37.46 (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:CIV? I don't believe I said anything offensive. And I'm talking about news channels such as BBC, CNN, CBC. Try a Google search of Tiananmen square protests and Tamil protests. They both give the same amount of hits.Eelam StyleZ (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Read some 'world news' on news sites and newspapers"? I say again, WP:CIV. And ... no Google gives far more hits on Tiananmen Square protests than Tamil protests. 20 years after the fact. FWIW. If you really think the two are comparable, you should take your own advice.99.245.37.46 (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm good with the knowledge I have, thank you very much. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the average opinions raised on this page, merge small Tamil protest articles for now with the 2009 Tamil protests for now but definitely keep 2009 Tamil protests in Canada and probably 2009 Tamil protests in the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no reason why Canadian Tamil protests article should be deleted and the UK protests have also made significant news overseas as well. Other protests are still stubs and are incomplete, meaning there is alot more to be written on them. But for now I guess it would be okay to merge them into the main article and later isolate them into separate articles if they are well developed. Bottom line, definitely do not delete. These events deserve to be documented and are encyclopedic. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note to closing admin, the notifications, alleged as canvassing, I sent to the editors were the creators and contributors of the protest articles that have been considered for deletion, as they said. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHY ARE YOU VOTING TWICE ON THIS PAGE? Please delete one of your votes. You've been canvassing hard since this article was nominated - I, for one, don't buy your explanation.99.245.37.46 (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. I see the above posting as an elaboration of his opinion stated earlier, taking into account other editor's opinions. No need to use ALLCAPS by the way, there is no need to get emotional. This AfD will be closed as keep anyway. BTW, it would be very nice if you could register.Jasy jatere (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It's another entry, with another vote recorded. If he intended to elaborate, he should modify his first vote. People shouldn't be registering two different opinions here, thus the ALLCAPS. No need to register.99.245.37.46 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Perhaps WP:CIV could help? :) Also, what proof do you have about my "hard" canvassing? I don't play politics here. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice comeback with WP:CIV. lol You sure are playing politics. Please read the site rules if you need refreshing. You've already admitted your canvassing and apologized for it - you should have left it there.99.245.37.46 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't need your certification right now -- let's try and stick to the point. I did not deny what I did. You just claimed I was canvassing "hard." I don't think I begged random editors or desperately persuaded them. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have anything against me, lets just get it cleared up right now. You are CONSTANTLY reverting my good faith edits to the Canadian article for NO particular reason and I don't want this to turn into an edit war. I'm sorry but I haven't had a problem with any editor but you since I created it. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the main article and merge any important unique information from the others. There is no particular reason for keeping them all when there's an appropriate main place that can accommodate all the material. DGG (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What we have to keep in mind if we are to merge is that protests in Canada and UK have their own notability with thousands of mainstream sources on their own. Taprobanus (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that merging all of the articles makes a lot of sense, although I agree with DGG that some of the less developed articles could be merged into the main article. If we merged all of the articles, the information on the protests in Canada would immediately seem like a good candidate to be split-off into its own article, due to length and number of sources. I'm not sure it makes sense to merge now and likely split not long thereafter. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree Taprobanus (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep all the articles till they get matured. You can't put into one bascket, all those important venues and events of the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora all over the world.Hillcountries (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best Strong Merge. The comparison with Tiananmen Square really helps illustrate the lack of NPOV of some of these users.206.210.126.186 (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment NPOV is no reason to delete Taprobanus (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So? It speaks to bias in THEIR voting. Nothing to do with mine, and nothing to do with my reason for voting Delete.99.245.37.46 (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you really think this article needs to be deleted then you need to stop editing and stop trying to plan how you think the article should be. Very contradicting. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia–Luxembourg relations

another random combination with no resident embassies. only 2 minor bilateral agreements [6]. almost all coverage is in a multilateral context, [7] or a recent football match between the 2 countries [8] and [9]. only multilateral coverage in French search. not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Permutation and combination again. Collect (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Robostub showing that there are lots of combinations (20,000 or so) of 208 nations taken 2 at a time. Fails WP:N and not a directory. Edison (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources adress these relations in any detail. Hipocrite (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The countries have bilateral agreements in force which have been reliably sourced. Not that multilateral relations should just be discounted. What do people exactly think isn't notable about these relations?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are 2 minor agreements (eg Mutual Protection of Classified Information) that unless covered widely in the media do not make a for notable relations. A relationship does not automatically mean notable relations for a Wikipedia article. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relations of these two nations have been significantly covered by independent media (the BBC) evidenced by the sources in the article. [10] [11] [12]--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because if the signed bilateral agreements. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

precedent has shown simply having 2 minor agreements does not mean notable relations. do you have evidence of significant coverage of their relations? LibStar (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which precedent? If it actually exists it should be reconsidered. Independently sourced references to bilateral treaties should clearly support a finding of notability.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of what? Items that one Wikipedia editor tells us are relevant to a topic he may have invented altogether - a synthesis, in other words? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They have a clear reference from a very notable and reliable source, about what that source refers to as a bilateral agreement between the nations. [13] What better source could you find? Dream Focus 10:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 quite minor agreements from a primary source is hardly a basis for a bilateral relations article. have you found any significant coverage from independent sources that would meet WP:N? LibStar (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no reliable independent sources have judged this topic, that is, this bilateral relationship, to be worthy of coverage in any depth at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. May I suggest "keep" voters review WP:GNG, which requires sources "independent of the subject"? And that taking two primary-source documents and proclaiming "notable relationship!" blatantly violates WP:PSTS? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the sources from the BBC on this article. They are clearly independent and indicate a notable relationship.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not quite: what those sources address is something which one Wikipedia editor tells us is relevant to a topic he may have invented altogether - ie, a synthesis. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mere existence of bilateral agreements does not automatically make those countries' bilateral relations notable.It takes sources to do that and there aren't any in this case. Yilloslime ^T_C 03:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almanac entries almost always rely on government website entries in Wikipedia. Every SCOTUS case is directly piped in from the SCOTUS website, the same for townships from the census data. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing WP:V with WP:N. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that is always true, primary sources can be used to verify information but not to establish notability. Please review the guidelines that reflect community consensus. Drawn Some (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are inherently flexible, and the GNG goes out of its way to repeatedly emphasise the fact. I think it particularly inapplicable to this sort of "relationship" topic. If they get in the way of improving the encyclopedia , by including subjects where there is a good deal of material, we ought to judge accordingly. The only reason WP:N still has consensus as a guideline is that there has been an agreement that we need some rules for the general purpose, and we have never had agreement on something to replace it. I think it obvious from the discussions that the last few months at AfD that the GNG would never have obtained sufficient consensus if now suggested as a new proposal, especially if proposed as applicable to all types of articles. So many exceptions would be raised as to prevent the necessary agreement. DGG (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're essentially saying WP:IAR, which isn't a very convincing argument. W/R/T the GNGs, they're there, inter alia, to guard against WP:OR/WP:SYN. If a topic hasn't been covered in secondary sources, it's going to be very hard--perhaps impossible--to write a neutral encyclopedia article on the topic and to avoid original research. So the GNGs basically say, don't write articles on topics for which only primary sources exist. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A government website is a secondary source when discussing the signing of a treaty. The text of the treaty itself is the primary source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but it is an independent source? According to WP:N, that's what's needed to establish notability: 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. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We recognize inherent notability in almanac and gazetteer entries. In almanacs and gazetteers the information just needs to be verifiable. Anyway the information stays in Wikipedia even when the articles are deleted. We are only debating whether they deserve their own article space. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am going to say keep. It has bilateral treaties and diplomatic meetings that meet the requirements for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do I expect any different? still lacks wide independent coverage for notability, more than 1 BBC article from 2000. LibStar (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And why should your personal opinion of what constitutes notability ("bilateral treaties and diplomatic meetings") be of any account, as opposed to significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources - a standard applied across Wikipedia? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has never been a standard across Wikipedia. We recognize inherent notability in almanac and gazetteer entries. Notability for biographies in the encyclopedia portion requires a litmus test of notability. In almanacs and gazetteers the information just needs to be verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on Notability says "significant" coverage not "wide" coverage. "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." WP:N The BBC's coverage (sourced on the page) of a topic is adequate to indicate significance. Appeals to made-up policies should be disregarded.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH is not a made-up policy; the BBC doesn't discuss something as such, but rather something which one Wikipedia editor tells us is relevant to a topic he may have invented altogether. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unclear about what you're talking about. Are you saying that it's original research to say a bilateral agreement between nations indicates an international relationship?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable topic for an article due to lack of significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Should be completely deleted with no merge or redirect. The random unimportant information included by people trying to save the article constitute WP:SYNTHESIS at best. Drawn Some (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above: no notable coverage. Eusebeus (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a mistaken view that these articles deal with diplomatic relations primarily. Commercial relations count too, especially as throughout history they have been the reason for the establishment of diplomatic relations first as consulates, and then upgraded as other aspects of political involvement increases. Any non-sporadic commerce or investment is sufficient to make these notable: they build a web, a concept that should be familiar here. DGG (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this articles aren't about relations between states then what are they about, DGG? You seem to be propsing renaming to All contacts between private citizens, corporations or governments in nations x and y. Where are the sources?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure they're about relations, which includes all of economic, political diplomatic , and cultural relations in this case, and in many others military ones as well. DGG (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, just the ones reported in reliable media, after all it is Latvia–Luxembourg relations. Relations cover all those topics, and they are notable when covered by reliable media. A private German citizen flying a single engine plane and landing in Red Square should be covered in Wikipedia in German - Russia relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to marry a Grand Fenwickian and our marriage were announced in my local newspaper (let's say, for this example, the West Windsor & Plainsboro News), would that be relevent to US-Grand Fenwickian relations? Could I get in wikipedia!?! This is just beyond. Hipocrite (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reductio ad absurdum isn't a helpful argument. We all learned that in Junior High School. For instance in Wikipedia all townships are notable, but not all houses are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, we are equally aware of the limits of extrapolation: in this case, it is not something inherent we're discussing (i.e. something covered as such), but something which one wikipedia editor tells us is relevant to a topic he or she may have invented altogether. in other words, it's a personal synthesis. There is also an obvious slippery slope in including all sort of info in such articles: not only does it make the articles look ridiculous, it exposes the absurdity of "rescue" attempts, whose transparent goal is not to inform about something notable, but to make something of no consequence look relevant.

What's more, who in hell would even think of replicating this level of trivia in articles that cover more significant topics, where immediately relevant info on immediately relevant phenomenons is in abundance? Of course, that's provided one cares about maintaining an encyclopedic character, and not primarily about making experimental topics such as this one look relevant by means of hot air.

It's always an issue of "positive discrimination", for some visionary rationale that eludes scrutiny. To paraphrase Bali above: we are not only asked to tolerate All contacts between private citizens, corporations or governments in Latvia and Luxembourg as a valid topic (when it's not even a workable topic); we are also led to believe that this only works for small countries, or for relations where there isn't much to say on a relevant, diplomatic, level. Supposedly "there is a mistaken view that these articles deal with diplomatic relations primarily" (the "primarily" here is especially intriguing, since it makes the phrase conveniently ambiguous). Fine then, let's go with that assumption. But can you imagine what it would entail for All contacts between private citizens, corporations or governments in Canada and the United States, or for All contacts between private citizens, corporations or governments in France and the United Kingdom? Dahn (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the media takes notice it becomes notable by Wikipedia definition. And again please don't use the Reduction to absurdity argument, it isn't valid argument. Please stick to Wikipedia Pillars of notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"When the media takes notice it becomes notable by Wikipedia definition." - absolutely not, as I'm sure you know. There are plenty of subjects that will not ever be even mentioned, let alone transformed into separate topics, on wikipedia, even if they were covered by the press. The exact difference between some media coverage and the stuff of wikipedia articles is carefully outlined by WP:N, WP:NOT etc. And, again, coverage of random topics which an editorial voice (of a wikipedia editor) ties together into a single subject is not the same as the subject having received coverage in the press. It may be an essay, an illustration of one's creativity, a piece of journalism, a press review, a prank, the result ofthis AfD being wrongfully seen as a dare... but it is not a wikipedia article. Dahn (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is simply a list of 15 isolated facts. There is no source with an analysis showing that the relations are in some way notable. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly cite some Wikipedia policy? This isn't a vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Random, non-encyclopedic, not based on any analysis other than the editorializing of a wikipedia editor. The text prioritizes ridiculously trivial topics for the sake of making itself look better, proving in itself that the topic is simply not worth a separate article. Dahn (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All topics are covered in the article on international relations. Please stick to issues of notability and verifiability, this isn't a vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? Dahn (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've done it Dahn. You've been added to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/The League of Extraordinary Deletionists. It's like your very own scarlet letter (actually a poisining the well exercise, but whatever).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least I'm in good company. Dahn (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand – Pakistan relations: random facts to throw together, but no sources proving that the relations between these two countries are a notable area of inquiry in anything. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article was deleted before discussion could take place. (Non-admin closure) Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 10:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick parish

Extensive article with details of a businessman, but lots of trivia and reads rather like a self-written puff piece. No clear notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this is a cut and paste copyvio of http://www.beyondfear.tv/the-team.asp and http://www.mando.com.au/crisis_leadership.php Porturology (talk) 08:18, 30 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 speedy deleted. I have speedied this on its way as an attack page per CSD G10, particularly given that there were defamatory allegations about living people in it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool the truth

Non-notable trivia points about Liverpool FC. Oscarthecat (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced trivia. Alexius08 (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd imagine it's already covered in the main Liverpool article (I haven't checked), and this article is full of POV. Lugnuts (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Liverpool F.C. already has an article, and there is nothing worth merging here. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 14:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing not elsewhere before the blanking, other than personal defamation rumour stuff, for which original posting should have been speedied under G10--ClubOranje^T 16:17, 30 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. After reading all of the comments in this discussion, it's fairly apparent that the consensus is to keep this x-y relations article. Although there are mixed opinions, there was no consensus to delete, and the keep reasons are strong. Jamie^☆S93 18:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Estonia relations

another random combination. non resident embassies noting that Estonia covers Australia from its embassy in Tokyo! most of the article is from a primary source (Aust foreign ministry). two way trade is AUD29M = USD23M (which is a very tiny fraction of Australia's total trade) . Australia has a working holiday scheme with most European Union nations so that's not really noteworthy. almost all coverage is about sport or in multilateral context except the first article of this search. LibStar (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are guilty of just looking at the first 10 results of a Google search again. The same search was able to pull together a significant article. You give the impression of due diligence by performing a search, but are making no effort to look beyond the first page, and you are denigrating what you find there on the first page. It is called the strawman fallacy when used in rhetorical debate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - WP:N isn't met Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Australia was the only Western country to break ranks and briefly recognise the Soviet annexation of Estonia (and the other Baltic states) as de jure for 17 months between July 1974 to December 1975 by the Whitlam government, while most other countries continued to recognise the independent Estonian diplomatic missions. This recognition of the Soviet annexation by the Whitlam government was repudiated by the subsequent Fraser government and relations with the independent Estonian consular representative re-established. This article has great potential for expansion. See this body of literature here. --Martintg (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For an example of close relationship, consider thelist of countries whose citizens are eligible for Australian Working Holiday visa. Estonia is among these 19 countries -- roughly one tenth of all the countries in the world. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a working holiday visa scheme is not enough to establish notable relations, Aust has one with Belgium, New Zealand has one with Norway and Mexico but none of these country pair articles exist. I doubt that's enough for a bilateral article to exist. LibStar (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how many grains of sand you examine, none of them makes a hill. And yet, a sandhill is nothing but grains of sand. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with reasoning like that, not sure how it's adding to a concise discussion. you need more reliable sources to prove WP:N. LibStar (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Permutation and combination not much better than random two nations. Collect (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Martintg. Stepopen (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination Capitalismojo (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page looks completely fine. Plenty of refs, well developed, obviously notable. Absolutely no good reason to delete this page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and not a directory. Too much is made of a NOTNEWS|news item about 1974. Edison (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think something moves beyond a news item when they start writing chapters and books about it. --Martintg (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is not a random combination, as some claimed here. The relationship is also notable for the Whitlam affair (note that Baltic emigrées' protests are sometimes considered one of the reasons of Whitlam's fall, albeit a minor one of course). --Miacek (t) 08:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per User:Martintg above. If people have written books on a topic, it's probably notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per book sources and well-attested historical impact. — CharlotteWebb 12:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A shining example of why the rush to delete these articles is often misplaced. I still can't fathom the prejudice against these bilateral articles. Why the nominator thinks the location of the embassy has anything to do with meeting WP:N is a mystery. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that Estonia sees very little need to attend official meetings with the Australian Government or to assist the 8000 odd Estonians living in Australia. it's not a short flight from Tokyo-Sydney-Canberra. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources adress these relations in any depth, regardless of how much can be written about a cultural exchange program. Hipocrite (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources found by Martintg push it over the top for me. However, I think that Australia's de jure recognition of the Soviet annexation of the Baltics is probably best treated in either an article of its own or in Foreign relations of Australia rather than in this cruft-pile of an article. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is reliable and verifiable, and I find it well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic is mentioned in two books, but those books discuss Australia's relations with the Baltic States, and an individual article on relations between Australia and Estonia is not warranted. The article lists: embassies/consulates; recognition/repudiation of Soviet annexation; political visit; visas arrangement; negotiations for a social security agreement; people from Estonia who settled in Australia; modest trade. There is simply nothing notable in the relations between Australia and Estonia (but an article on Australia's recognition or non-recognition of Soviet occupation may be worthwhile, although it is currently only one sentence in Baltics). Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. feydey (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no discernible relationship to not directory,--that there are many things worth talking about is not the same as indiscriminate, but rather, proof of justification for an article. Meets WP:N. The sources are adequate, and the various sort of relations --diplomatic and other--noteworthy. I look forward to the expansion of these articles, all the thousands of them. DGG (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content now in the article, indicates there is a notable relationship between the countries. Dream Focus 16:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable relationship - as expanded clearly meets notability guidelines. Rebecca (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A fair proportion of the references in the current version of this seem to satisfy the the notability guideline for reliable secondary sources. There might be ana rgument for combining a couple of pages to become Australia-Baltic States relations, but in the absence of any such proposal this article of itself passes the notability test. Euryalus (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as moot. Article in question was speedily deleted by User:WereSpielChequers. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia West

Prod declined without comment by anon IP. Appears to be totally nonnotable, barely any assertion of notability. No assertion that this even comes close to meeting WP:PROF and her books are all apparently unpublished. Frankly this looks like a vanity page. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I agree with the nom that there is no clear assertion of notability. However, the article contains some unnecessary and unsourced negative information about the subject, which leads me to think that this is an attack page rather than a ~~vanity page~~ conflict of interest. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted this as an attack page as I agreed with Metropolitan90. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:23, 30 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 Nomination withdrawn per Paul Erik's print sources. Good work. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country-rap

This seems to be a case of WP:SYNTH — a loosely defined genre tied together only in that they're "country song that sound like rap." The only sources are Allmusic biographies which only give the opinion of one reviewer, followed by a list of unsourced, random rap influences in country songs. Yes, "Getcha Some" and "I Wanna Talk About Me" can be cited as examples of rap-influenced country songs, but does that mean they actually are "country rap" if they're the only two songs of that sort in Toby Keith's catalog? Do any of the other songs cited truly form a "genre" of sorts, even though they're the only rap-styled songs in those respective artists' catalogues? Is "Honky Tonk Badonkadonk" country-rap just because it uses hip hop slang? Is Kid Rock country-rap just because he's done rap songs and had country hits? Except for the fact that many sources cite Cowboy Troy as a country rapper, nobody seems to agree as to what "country rap" even constitutes.

Besides this source, I could not find one non-trivial discussion of this as a legitimate genre. The only hits on Google/Google News were for a Bellamy Brothers album called Country Rap, one news source discussing a non-notable band in the early 1990s that claimed they had done a "country rap" song on a lark, and false positives brought on by country and rap being back to back in a list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The amount of sourced info suggests there really is such a thing as country-rap. I am sure there are people interested in learning about the topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What amount of sourced info? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources sufficiently discussing this "genre". Tim meh !_{(review me)} 13:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article about a music genre that has been discussed in reliable sources. [14] I have added several sources just now; the subject meets the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to keep now that Paul Erik has provided sources. The subject is notable. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 22:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, reliable sources exist.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 23:56, 30 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 to delete. WP:LOCAL is still an essay lacking consensus to be a guideline, and thus shouldn't be heavily relied upon in AfD arguments. While the topic has primarily local interest, this discussion landed in the direction of "keep", because the bakery has received enough non-trivial coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Jamie^☆S93 22:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cocoa Locale

I created this article, and it's sourced with news coverage in major papers in Montreal as well as the Ottawa weekly -- but I'm not sure it's encyclopedically notable. I rely on your good judgement. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is only local, lots of local businesses get the occasional article. NawlinWiki (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Technically it meets WP:NOTE but WP:LOCAL is intended to exclude such. I'm borderline on this one since there is an Ottawa source and Montreal sources but it really is a local bakery without the celebrity of Magnolia Bakery. I would be open to a convincing argument otherwise. Drawn Some (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I think the Ottawa weekly was a reprint of the same piece in the chain's sister publication in Montreal, Hour. I didn't realize that when I added it. I also did come across a small mention in Air Canada's inflight magazine referring to Cocoa Locale as a "cult sensation," but again, local restaurants often get such write ups. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not defined by whether a business has reached celebrity status; it is defined by how many news organizations have covered it. A casual glance at the references in this article proves that this business is indeed notable. Deleting this notable, sourced article would be doing a disservice to the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The bakery passes WP:GNG, a guideline. WP:LOCAL is an essay which hasn't gained consensus to become a guideline; the essay, Wikipedia:Essays are not policy, invalidates to your WP:LOCAL argument.
The sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources proves that this bakery passes WP:N. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 28 May 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 05:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A local bakeshop doesn't seem like the kind of topic a serious encyclopedia should be covering, but it has been discussed in reliable sources -- so we have to have it. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Some good sourcing for this article. But I've been to Cocoa Locale, I've lived in this neighborhood for 15 years. It's somewhat locally notable, but nothing more. Papers often cover new or cutesy businesses. The fact that this got covered four times doesn't show anything more than local notability to my mind. Hairhorn (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has had some local coverage, but I don't think it has had "significant" coverage. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are these sources not significant coverage? They are, so the bakery easily passes WP:N. Cunard (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The bakery has been noted by independent reliable sources in a non-trivial way, so it passes. I consider WP:LOCAL to be instructive, but I don't think it has sufficiently wide consensus to base deletion decisions upon. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Texas Collegiate League. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Generals

non-notable collegiate basketball team. Hardly "professional" - their league is set up to be a professional one, certainly, but in the traditional sense "professional" means "players do this as a job". Ironholds (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but it's baseball, not basketball. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Texas Collegiate League. BRMo (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some collegiate summer ball team isn't even close to being notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 13:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Stand alone article isn't warranted, but the article on league itself (although it could use improved sourcing) is an appropriate target. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Texas Collegiate League. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East Texas Pump Jacks

non-notable collegiate Baseball team. Hardly "professional" - their league is set up to be a professional one, certainly, but in the traditional sense "professional" means "players do this as a job". Ironholds (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid(talk) 04:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some collegiate summer ball team isn't even close to being notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 14:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Texas Collegiate League. BRMo (talk) 14:27, 30 May 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 00:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially minor league baseball. Fails WP:ATHLETE Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Completely inappropriate title deleted as attack. لenna vecia 18:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of homosexual abuse by Sathya Sai Baba

Speedy deletion rationale by tagger was: "This is redundant file. The same exact copy can be found in the Sathya Sai Baba Main article under the section - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Reports_of_sexual_abuse. This subsection was initially created due to WP:POV fork. It is really being difficult to maintain 2 copies of the same article." Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 04:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the reasons why I would recommend deleting this article:

This article has exactly a mirror copy in the main Sathya Sai Baba article section - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Reports_of_sexual_abuse.
Its becoming increasingly difficult to maintain 2 copies.
This subarticle was created initially by User:White_Adept - for WP:POV fork. He created it inspite of other editors telling him not to create this sub-article.
Similar sub-article titled "Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba" was asked to be deleted in 2006 and to maintain it under the main Sathya Sai Baba article during the BostonMA mediation discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation. Reason for this proposal was mainly not to allow WP:POV fork and maintenance issues in the sub-article. Radiantenergy (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This content clearly belongs in the main article, and is already there, so we need not consider a merge.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly POV fork. Section exists in the main article and should be kept there. No good reason to justify a separate article --Deepak D'Souza 11:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete dear God, look at the title. There's no way that article could ever be neutral. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:18, 30 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 redirect to Texas Collegiate League. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazos Valley Bombers

non-notable collegiate Baseball team. Hardly "professional" - their league is set up to be a professional one, certainly, but in the traditional sense "professional" means "players do this as a job". Ironholds (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC) *Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some collegiate summer ball team isn't even close to being notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 14:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Texas Collegiate League. BRMo (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Texas Collegiate League. While an organization doesn't have to be professional to be notable (I think everyone would agree that the New York Knickerbockers are notable), it does need independent, reliable sources showing notability, which I'm not finding for this team.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Notable target has been located, no reason to delete outright. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Texas Collegiate League. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McKinney Marshals

non-notable collegiate Baseball team. Hardly "professional" - their league is set up to be a professional one, certainly, but in the traditional sense "professional" means "players do this as a job". Ironholds (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC) ~~:*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some collegiate summer ball team isn't even close to being notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 14:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Texas Collegiate League. BRMo (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially minor league baseball. Fails WP:ATHLETE Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Texas Collegiate League. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coppell Copperheads

non-notable collegiate ~~basketball~~ baseball team. Hardly "professional" - their league is set up to be a professional one, certainly, but in the traditional sense "professional" means "players do this as a job". Ironholds (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC) *Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some collegiate summer ball team isn't even close to being notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 14:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Texas Collegiate League. BRMo (talk) 14:29, 30 May 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, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially minor league baseball. Fails WP:ATHLETE Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boise Angelesization=

contested prod, non-notable neologism RadioFan (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism. Only references to this term are from a single blogger. Wronkiew (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. Claims to be long used but one revision states that it was first used on May 29, 2009. Wperdue (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Delete no RS Jezhotwells (talk) 21:57, 30 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleopatra of Mauretania

This is entirely based on someone's personal website whose credentials can be found here [15] - I don't think this meets our criteria at WP:RS and can find no other evidence of such a person. Dougweller (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see doubts that Cleopatra Selene's daughter was really called Drusilla (in R.E. and P.I.R., both by Stein, I think); but I haven't found any speculation naming a daughter Cleopatra. N p holmes (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Instead of deleting it because of sourcing problems, why not try and find sources to corroborate it. Anyone who existed 2,000 years ago who is still in human memory is notable and therefore worthy of inclusion. --Genovese12345 (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Did you read my nomination rationale? I did try to find other sources to corroborate it, and failed. If I could have sourced it I would have sourced it. If you look at my other edits to similar articles yesterday you will see me sourcing them. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete While the web site cited is well researched and well reasoned, it represents one author's opinion, ~~and~~ but never itself goes beyond the point of speculation that such a person existed. Further, this is, effectively, a POV fork, as most authors name this daughter of Juba and Cleopatra Selene as Drusilla, and a page exists for her already. Even if such a daughter existed, the sole act of existing is insufficient to merit a Wikipedia page, and given that not a single piece of evidence names her, a page for her under this hypothetical name cannot be justified. That Juba and Cleopatra Selene have been speculated to have had a daughter of his name can be indicated on their pages, but we don't need pages for non-notable genealogical hypotheses. Agricolae (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be based on speculation. Cleopatra Selene and Juna appear to have had a daughter named Drusilla, but there doesn't seem to be evidence for another. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could have been? Maybe? No sources.....scrap it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see it's been flagged for rescue. Does anyone know Indiana Jones' phone number? - JeffJonez (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "could have been a possible" says it all. We can't afford to have unverifiable fantasy mirrored. Drawn Some (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite to remove all sense of OR per The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Rome and the friendly king, Queen Cleopatra, The Berbers, The lives of Cleopatra and Octavia, Cleopatras, Hellenistic queens, Roman Africa, The Reign of Cleopatra, Ancient coin collecting IV, Vassal-queens and some contemporary women in the Roman, Cleopatra VII, daughter of the Nile, Hellenistic queens, Two studies on women in antiquity, Cleopatra's daughter, the queen of Mauretania, Cleopatra: Ruling in the Shadow of Rome, Scota, Egyptian Queen of Scots, Birds in the ancient world from A to Z, Roman Historical Portraits, Cleopatra: a study in politics and propaganda, Cleopatra and Rome, The Cambridge ancient history, The Cambridge history of Africa, Historical Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, K2, quest of the gods, The divinity of the Roman emperor, and many more found at Google Books which make the geocities article pale... as they indeed state that Antony and Cleo had twin children and Cleo of Mauretania was one of them. This kinship is found, and the relationship of the rulers and their progeny, in the above sources in depth... and more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong Cleopatra You are thinking of Cleopatra Selene II, one of Antony & Cleo's twins indeed. This article is about an alleged daughter of hers (in addition to Drusilla). Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agricolae sums it up well. Pure speculation. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 subject does not meet the inclusion guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Felino Soriano

The article is about a non-notable contemporary poet. A prod tag was removed, hence its presence here. Does not meet WP:RS and WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:50, 30 May 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, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't seem to be any third-party sources about this person, other than a few blog mentions. No indication of notability anywhere. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. wp:N Niteshift36 (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Perhaps not all high schools are notable but consensus appears to be that this one is. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eumemmerring College

I originally proposed deletion of this page, which was disputed. I am henceforth bringing it to AFD. The school in question no longer exists as an entity. The website is no longer accessible and it's entry has been removed from the schools registry. The page contains nothing of historical or encyclopedic value, IMO. Thanks. — Manti core 02:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. All high schools are notable, whether or not they still exist. The claim that the school was the "3rd largest school in Australia" adds to the school's notability. See this Google News archive search for lots and lots of references. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not all high schools are notable, but one of this size and level of news coverage is. "no longer exists as an entity" is not a proper deletion rationale --- notability is not temporary, Roman Empire, etc. cab (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Whether or not high schools are automatically notable (which is debated), it's custom and practice that high schools are very rarely deleted on Wikipedia. As for the rest, Eastmain and CaliforniaAliBaba are correct.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While there is no specific policy mandating the notability of High Schools, and those policy disputes are ongoing, I would argue that would be a simple and pragmatic decision to decide that Eumemmerring College is notable, were it still operating. I would argue that the issue to be decided in this AfD is about notability of a previously notable but now defunct High School, or - in short - "It was notable then, is it notable now?" --Shirt58 (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was ever notable, then it's notable forever. Wikipedia does, and should, contain all sorts of information on subjects of purely historical importance. See WP:NTEMP.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the school was split into four high schools on each of its four campuses and it is a key part of the history of each of the new schools. There is still plenty of material available on the web to verify the content e.g. here and I note that it has been rated the best secondary college in Australia, here. TerriersFan (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This argument that all high schools are notable (and inherent notability as a concept) is bogus and continually repeating it does not make not make it any more true. High schools, like any other entity, should meet WP:N and there is no evidence that this school does. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whether or not you consider that high schools are notable this school clearly meets WP:N. If you carry out a Google search you will find plenty of reliable, independent sources. In addition being considered the best school in Australia is a clear claim to notability and there is a further claim that this is the richest school in Victoria, here. TerriersFan (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, this HS is notable by any reasonable standard. Second, the general argument is not that all HSs are notable, but that all high schools are considered notable at Wikipedia, precisely to avoid the problems of debating each one individually to weed out a few percent. Almost always sources can in fact be located with enough digging. in local print sources--and, given Google News Archive, this will continue to get easier.This has been a stable compromise for over a year now. Stubbornness in denying this working consensus is getting a little pointy. DGG (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyright violation, also author request (blanked page) - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peycho Kanev

Prod contested on the grounds that this poet was nominated for a "Pushcart." Problem is, this award doesn't seem to be much more notable than this writer. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Pushcart Prize is notable and a real honor but being nominated for it isn't a big deal.Drawn Some (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The biographical text is ripped off verbatim from Madswirl.com. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's his standard of official bio. It's actually published on quite a few more websites than only Madswirl. -The Pushcart is actually quite respected among many in the actual literary community and it is a very small percentage of writers that are ever nominated. So, by the literary community's standards it is a rather huge deal to simply be nominated. I'll remove the article if no one wants it on the site, but it doesn't seem very impartial or educated to vote articles for deletion when you don't seem to have a very informed assessment about the reality of the community or the community's assessment of the subject the article is in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardwellsII (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Memorial

non notable truck, probably a remnant of 9/11 hysteria. its just a truck. badmachine (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most definitely not a "remnant of 9/11 hysteria", this is a memorial to the victims and has nothing to do with "hysteria". This truck is featured in two books (most notably Custom Semi), 20 news articles, and over a thousand web pages. I'd say that is pretty famous for just one truck. You'd be hard pressed to find another single semi-truck which garnered as much attention as this one. Yes, the article could be improved, but it definitely should not be deleted. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 21:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added RS to the fisrt part of the artcile but connot source citations for the second part at present. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure, truckers tend to customize their trucks, but very rarely do they go this far and get such attention for it. Yes, the September 11th attacks were horrific beyond description, but this guy did it a couple years afterwards, when people were calming down from it. It's been in a lot fo news and magazine articles, so i'd say that's enough to warrant notability and a wikipedia article. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 18:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the sourced material into Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks#Physical memorials. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not be opposed to a redirect and merge with this page. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Dank under WP:CSD#G11. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siconnex

Vanity page, no assertion of notability, ... the usual Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Hairhorn (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam (CSD G11) -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as pure spam. Alexius08 (talk) 03:44, 31 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 speedy delete, G5. Author is a sock of Komodo lover (talk · contribs), who has his own LTA page. If your abuse has progressed to the point that you need your own LTA page, as far as I'm concerned you're community banned. Blueboy 96 00:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla-Cat

Non-notable, minor fictional character Passportguy (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect Not even the correct character name if you go by the show's character list. Nate • (chatter) 03:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there's no there there. A non-notable fictional goo-gag with no coverage in the realityverse.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Content has changed substantially since AfD started, not improved at all, and now meets Speedy Delete A1- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:40, 30 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 speedily deleted (A7) at 06:34, 30 May 2009 by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) --- cab (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gueely

Non-notable producer. Ridernyc (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Non-notable producer, no assertion of or evidence for notability; article created by spammer with name of subject's record label. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All releases are online only - no physical releases. You can release stuff online and still be notable; if you release everything online you probably aren't. Hairhorn (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any sources that would help to establish WP:N notability for this 14-year-old record producer. I checked Google News archives, and also a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Delete. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:04, 30 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basis of unity

Non-notable, no refs, page has been orphaned for years without any work done. Doesn't seem like any meaningful references can be found that anyone uses this term in this way. Conical Johnson (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a confused synonym for "mandate", at least as it applies to organizations... although I can't find that particluar definition of mandate on wikipedia. Maybe I need to spend time with a thesaurus. Hairhorn (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is used as jargon in business management - or merge with Mandate (politics), "the power granted by an electorate." Bearian (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the basis of unity page, it's the principles that unite people who agree with each other. This is not at all the same as "the power granted by an electorate". The definition of one of these things must be wrong if they are the same, right? Conical Johnson (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much management jargon is almost or completely devoid of meaning; for me that's another reason to delete rather than a defense of the article... Hairhorn (talk) 11:04, 2 June 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, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't imagine content for this page that isn't original research. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not potentially verifiable in reliable sources. Borders on WP:NEO. I think it is ordinarily called "founding principles". Drawn Some (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the term itself has been described enough to meet WP:N than any way of describing it will lead to original research. Them From Space 06:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (A7) by Tnxman307. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G&C Records

Non-notable record label. Ridernyc (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Non-notable corp --Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brand new, online-only label. Two things that tell me it's almost certainly not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found nothing in a Google News archives search, and nothing in a search of a library database of newspaper and magazine articles that would help to establish WP:N notability. Delete. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:00, 30 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 speedy delete. per A7, as a result of a simple mistake. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher William

Should be CSD being forced to AFD. A total of one hit one hit on google. Ridernyc (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Mindbogglingly non-notable musician; article created by spamusername account with name of subject's record label. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Fails WP:NOTE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttonyb1 (talk • contribs)
Delete. not notable. Another spammy entry from an online-only label. Hairhorn (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry for the mess. When doing CSD patrol I sometimes make the opposite mistake that many editors do when doing new page patrol. At first glance the article appeared to assert importance/significance. It wasn't until later that I noticed that this was part of a self promotion campaign. I also apologize for inadvertently removing the AFD tag when restoring the speedy tag. In my defense, G&C Records had not yet been nominated for deletion when I removed the speedy tag. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 30 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 speedy deleted by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jer note

- ShootinPutin109 ^Talk. 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although there's no nomination rationale, this is entirely made up, probably by a schoolkid. It is incoherent, and doesn't exist. Fences and windows (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fences and windows. Conical Johnson (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. The lack of rationale is frankly, rather silly. However it's a blatant hoax, and certainly doesn't look like passing Wp:N and Wp:V! Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete why is the afd process even necessary for articles like this? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax 700% Initiated Carpet Bombing on the article now --KrebMarkt 07:34, 30 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 00:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uwe Diegel

Possibly autobiographical, page created by user name matching subject's. Only other editor goes by the name of subject's company. Prod was deleted, no explanation for notability, so I'm bringing here. There are a fair bit of references on patent listing websites, but nothing else; one newspaper reference in 'Le Bien Public', but can't get to the article (March '05). Doesn't pass WP:BIO. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced autobiography of a non-notable businessman. لenna vecia 18:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I would personally vote for keep but I believe this afd has been opened for enough time so I'll close it as a no consensus. The article can be improved a lot. Tone 20:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambasada Gavioli

The article does not cite any reliable independent sources, nor is there any indication that significant coverage in such sources exists. Unless the notability of the establishment can be verified, the article should be deleted. Skomorokh 01:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a serious trimming of non-notable and/or not-referenced (such as the ideological and "Cult following") sections, but it is the most well-known place for electronic culture in the country. I added two references from major Slovene newspapers and trimmed the most over-enthusiastic sentences a bit, the rest will have to be done by people who actually know the scene. --Yerpo (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but I think this nightclub isn't notable enough to include it into Wikipedia, anyway I don't get the point about articles on nightclubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janisterzaj (talk • contribs) 12:59, 1 June 2009

Comment: I don't really care either way, but the club is quite notable at least on the national level (see the references) and you shouldn't let your personal feelings decide about article appropriateness. We have rules and guidelines for that. --Yerpo (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was one of the most important important centers of electronic music in the 1990s and early 2000s, not only in Slovenia, but also in north-east Italy and north-west Croatia. Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs some cleanup. But per AGF of the comments by other editors and the indications of notability in the article I think its best to keep it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability, sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talk • contribs) 11:13, June 6, 2009
Delete What's notable about it? --Abce2|AccessDenied 19:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick Google search definitely shows some potential notability and I'm sure that everything can be sourced. Tavix | Talk 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Major League Baseball mascots#Former mascots. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Charge

Unsourced article, ~~likely hoax~~ - I cannot find any trace of this purported mascot on Google. The only other mention is on another Wikipedia article, added there by an anon user Passportguy (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reliable sources may be lacking, but the mascot is not a hoax. For example, from Sports Illustrated, 1994: "Pool, rummaging through the rooms alone, opened one door in the dark, flipped on a light and was greeted by a disembodied head falling off a shelf: It was the overstuffed noggin of Chester Charge, the Astros' first mascot." [16] BRMo (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Looks like this is a case of unlikely but true nonetheless... Passportguy (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Major League Baseball mascots#Former mascots. BRMo (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Major League Baseball mascots#Former mascots or add sources since being the second mascot ever in MLB could be notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 13:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. Definitely not a hoax, but for now I'm not seeing enough for individual notability. I also have questions about the copyright status of the picture in the article. I left a note for the author, but no reply yet.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:06, 30 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. Sort of a weak keep, but a keep nonetheless. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greentrax Recordings

lacks references, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Fails WP:CORP RadioFan (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Didn't find any articles in GNews solely about Greentrax recordings, but there are oodles and oodles of articles mentioning the record label in one way or the other. Add to that the fact that two notable artists are signed up to the label (or at least not challenged for notability yet), I think there's enough for this label to qualify. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CORP tells us the same thing as WP:N, notability is demonstrated by "significant coverage in secondary sources", which I'm not finding. Even if there were hundreds of notable acts on the label, notability doesn't transfer. There is no provision in WP:CORP for record labels with notable artists. If this company were notable, someone, somewhere would have written something about.--RadioFan (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there are cases where, in effect, notability does transfer. The most obvious example is where an writer is considered a major author, all books written by the author are considered notable. A chart single makes the artist notable even though the claim to notability is primarily on the single itself. Actors are usually considered notable through association with notable programmes, films or plays. Obviously there are some claims of notability by association which shouldn't be accepted, but the fact that a) it's association to two notable acts instead of one, b) being the record label of a notable act is a much better claim than most claims of association, and c) there is quite a lot of mentions in third party sources (most non-notable organisations can't get more than a few trivial mentions), I'm prepared to give benefit of the doubt. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Please make a good faith attempt to confirm that sources aren't likely to exist, WP:BEFORE, 30 seconds on google found this archived writeup on the label and founder http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-26388056_ITM appears to be from a scottish paper The Sunday Herald riffic (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I found that as well. While it's about the founder, not the company, since this company is likely the founders primary claim to fame, its likely a reasonable one to use to show notability. But 1 article still isn't significant coverage. I'm seeing a lot of hits on the name but since the company name is mentioned in press releases and reviews of artists, it can be difficult to find coverage of the company itself. Did you find anything else that is specifically about the company (that isn't a press release, there are a number of those showing up but they done help here)?--RadioFan (talk) 14:06, 30 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. Wizardman 20:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GetGreat.com

promotional website, not notable Spanneraol (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete new website. Opened without any media interest.[17] gidonb (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just as a head-up, it's "GetGreat" not "GotGreat", so your Google search should look like this. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable, third-party sources, just a link to the website and its sponsor. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Just a new sports website, not ESPN.com, not notable. American Eagle (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTE. Nothing more to say. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable now with the potential to be notable in the future.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 13:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no assertion of popularity through reliable sources. Alexius08 (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. - Masonpatriot (talk) 14:43, 31 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 00:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Hart (disambiguation)

Unnecessary page PatGallacher (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't disambiguate. JJL (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unnecessary page on two counts.

Firstly, we do not have an article on the skateboarder at present, and until we do we are not in a position to judge his or her notability. It is the responsibility of those who consider this person to be notable to write an encyclopedic article.

Secondly, even if we do get such an article, this page would still be unnecessary. Either one person of this name would be clearly more notable, in which case the second would be a hatnote from the first, or else they are of roughly equal notability, in which case "Kelly Hart" should be a disambiguation page. You only need a page like this if there are three or more people of this name, Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear on this. PatGallacher (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pat's reasoning above is spot on. This disambiguation page is not needed at all. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pat. No need for the db page. gidonb (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WBLI links a DJ to the skateboarder for some reason,[18] but it is unclear why. A hatnote to WBLI for the DJ can be added to Kelly Hart, analogous to PatGallacher's suggestion above for the skateboarder. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to disambiguate. Tavix | Talk 22:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Allen

Notability - sounds like a stage mother's list of all the commercials her little star's been in. PacificBoy 07:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:ENTERTAINER with significant roles in Enough, General Hospital and Providence. Rewritten in a more neutral tone. decltype (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AFTER showing her easily passing WP:ENTERTAINER. Send to WP:CLEANUP to addres article style. I agree with the nominator's concerns over article style,, but AfD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:14, 24 May 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, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough is enough per WP:ENTERTAINER. JJL (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets WP:ENTERTAINER. I would have closed this instead of relisting but I recently got a close reverted for doing so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 30 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 00:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Chants of Guru

Non-notable studio album. This is what I get from the Google search. Also, by looking at the article creator's contributions, I suspect a COI. Salih (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, possibly a spam article Arma virumque cano (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Power.corrupts (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- update - Gsearch does not provide anything helpful to verify the info, delete according to WP:V Power.corrupts (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete NN per Salih and [19]. gidonb (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't assert notability per WP:NALBUMS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NALBUMS. Didn't find any independent reviews or article on the album and the artist herself has borderline notability. Please also see related AFDs on Uma Mohan's bio and other albums. Abecedare (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Student Liberty Youth Magazine

Non-notable magazine. Google and Google News searches turn up nothing to support the article's inclusion. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable student mag. Arma virumque cano (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN student publication. No reliable sources. Cosmomancer (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user has been indefinitely blocked as a probable sock puppet of User:McWomble--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:03, 23 May 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, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Thaddeus and [20] gidonb (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indications of notablity for this rather promotional article. Possible G7-web. DGG (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignition Consulting Group

I have found no reliable third party sources that have more than trivial coverage of this company. The COI author asserted that it met our guidelines stating the following on the talk page:

This entry is notable because of the extensive and distinctive work Ignition Consulting Group has done for developing a value-based compensation model for advertising agencies and their clients. Coke is one of the first major companies to begin adopting such a model and have recently cited Tim Williams as one of the leaders in the value-based compensation movement (cited in a recent industry event and webinar hosted by the American Association of Advertising Agencies). This is big news to have a major company like Coke finally adopting the value-based compensation model.
Ignition Consulting Group along with Tim Williams has been cited and interviewed on the topic of value-based compensation quite extensively as it is big philosophy change in compensation structures for advertising agencies and their clients.
I have included references of papers, studies and interviews on this topic in this entry. If there are specific changes I need to make to make this entry more Wikipedia friendly please let me know. Thank you.

Unfortunately, the sources added appear either not independent or trivial in nature.

I have found some indication that Tim Williams is notable in his own right, however, so I am open to this content being moved into a larger article about him. ThaddeusB (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An AFDbot notified me...and since I think I deleted previous versions, and placed an initial CSD notification I think it fails to reach the bar for inclusion. Syrthiss (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: self-promotion. Alexius08 (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Tyrenon (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Clovelly

non-notable location Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Geographical places are inherently notable. OK, the article needs improvement but that isn't a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? Geographical places are not and never have been inherently notable. Where are you getting this from? Ironholds (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:IHN#Items with de facto notability, the place is obviously populated as it has a bus service. Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup: "Cities, Towns, Suburbs, Villages, Neighborhoods within large cities" - that isn't the same as "geographic places". Most places within the UK have a bus services, in this case one that runs through Clovelly generally rather than just North Cloverly. North Cloverly is a location within Clovelly, so out of "Cities, Towns, Suburbs, Villages, Neighborhoods within large cities" the only point that could cover it is "neighborhoods within large cities". Read Clovelly and tell me if you think it qualifies as a large city. Ironholds (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Clovelly is a small town in Devon, England. North Clovelly appears to be in Australia. 12:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Clovelly, New South Wales then? Makes sense, references all the right bits. One problem - Clovelly itself is a suburb.Ironholds (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Clovelly, New South Wales, retain title as a redirect. Mjroots (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. North Clovelly is not recognised by the Geographical Names Board. It has no particular status or notability as a place. WWGB (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WWGB Melburnian (talk) 14:04, 31 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. لenna vecia 05:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lorraine Rykiss

There is an indication of notability, that she is a concert pianist. When I looked for reliable sources all I find is trivial coverage of her in sources about Paula Abdul. I can find no indication she is notable in her own right and notability is not inherited from her daughter. A new name 2008 (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-trivial coverage Arma virumque cano (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. After thoroughly looking into the news sources,(article in German) (article in English) I came to the conclusion that "merge" and redirect into Paula Abdul is the optimal solution for this article. gidonb (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not independently notable, and it looks like the information that should be included in Paula Abdul is there already. ReverendWayne (talk) 21:29, 30 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. Mfield (Oi!) 01:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SALIN

no assertion of notability; fails WP:ORG Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GROUP and WP:WEB. WWGB (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:WEB does not apply as it is an organization. It is notable as collection of librarians. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An "informal, unaffiliated" network of libraries. It has to pass WP:ORG, then, as the initial nom statement said. Ironholds (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:ORG Though SALIN is coordinated by an informal organisation it is a very real and well-organised network (hence precedence of the word "Network" in SALIN's name. Given the influence that this network has on the shape of the South Australian Library scene I would have thought it deserved inclusion. SALIN has a great and very real influence and importance to the hundreds of members with which it is affiliated. LIBRARIAN 2nd June 2009
_{IP vote indented.} Ironholds (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - a Google search of 'SALIN' returns almost no hits about this organisation: [21] Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- In reply to Nick-D; A search of the Australian Library and Information Association www.alia.org.au web-page reveals more than 50 hits for SALIN. Google is not an Authority on Library organisations. ALIA is. There is more to the net (and life) than what Google can find. LIBRARIAN 2nd June 2009
_{IP vote indented.} Ironholds (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a well known organisation within the South Australian Library community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.237.233 (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
_{IP vote indented.} Ironholds (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to all keep votes; if you are invoking WP:ORG you must show how SALIN passes it. Simply saying "it passes WP:ORG because it is important" does not work. Ironholds (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:ORG It is referenced numerous times on the ALIA website, the peak body for Australian Librarians. It is discussed in an article published in a peer reviewed journal. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=70053C38FC1D7BD36404952E763E21FF?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkpdf&contentId=1751929 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.146.82 (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The journal article is discussing LIS generally - SALIN is mentioned, but hardly the topic of the article. Ironholds (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am somewhat conflicted on this one. I think it comes own on the side of failing the criteria and frankly the text of the article doesn't really argue for its notability either (Informal?) --Narson ~ Talk • 11:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry I don't really understand how you can say that, the article is about professional development of South Australian Librarians and uses information gathered from using the SALIN list because it is a notable South Australian library organisation. The journal was published in a peer reviewed journal. It was selected over ALIA (Australian Library and Information Association) because of the large number of subscribers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.146.82 (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
_{IP vote indented.} Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SALIN hosted the Adelaide premiere of 'The Hollywood Librarian' with sponsorship from ALS (a Library vendor). A report was published in ALS Newsline http://www.alslib.com.au/documents/newsline-summer-08.pdf
_{IP vote indented.} Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discussed in article by SALIN cofounder 'Building New Generation Networks in Australia: a Personal Experience' in LIScareer.com - The Library & Information Science Professional's Career Development Center. http://www.liscareer.com/sinclair_salin.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.237.233 (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
_{IP vote indented.} Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SALIN is mentioned in the January-June 2003 ALIA SA Library Technician's group as one of the biggest reasons for the demise of the popularity of the group. "Another factor influencing our low attendance numbers is the establishment of a new library group operating in South Australia called SALIN (South Australian Library Information Network) This group is not ALIA based but has a majority of ALIA members on their committee and at their functions. They hold extremely interesting and well attended functions and there is no charge other than a coin donation to cover snacks and a speaker gift. Unlike ALIA there is no cost to join SALIN." Found here http://www.alia.org.au/groups/libtsa/reports/2003.01-06.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.237.233 (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Australian Library and Information Association (the professional peak body for Australian Librarian's) lists SALIN on their Australian library and related organisations, http://www.alia.org.au/links/organisations.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.237.233 (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is something dodgy going on here, with all these chaps coming on from, what, two IPs? I suspect there is some off wiki canvassing going on here. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insignificant organization, and minor mentions like that do not add up to notability. That an group is listed among related or allied groups by a national notable organization does not make the group notable. That it competes with a subchapter of a national group does not help either--far from it, it shows the local and non-notable status--especially given the utterly trivial nature of what is said about it--groups that finance themselves from snack sales at meetings are not likely to be notable. That its cofounder talk about it in an article he wrote is the definition of non-independent source, and the reason why we have that rule. But this is all as expected, state level professional organizations almost always are non-notable. My colleagues above have a good deal to learn about WP standards. DGG (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To DGG: According to Wiki's own guidelines, "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." " SALIN IS a significant organisation for South Australian LIS for what it DOES, not how much money it makes (BTW, what is YOUR definition of a "not for profit" organisation?!). It does not 'compete' with the subchapter of the national group, but rather supports it. Many of the SALIN committee members have used SALIN as a launching pad to serve on committees of that national group. Many of the SALIN members have taken out membership of that national group - this hardly supports your claim of competition. Now, as for what SALIN does: it supports new entrants to the LIS field by offering a supportive environment in which they can learn how to complete job applications in the LIS field; ofers networking opportunities in a non-threatening environment and other professionl development opportunities. It might not be rocket science, but it is an important stepping stone for many people who are new to LIS in South Australia, giving them confidence in their abilities and knowledge prior to making the move to serve on ALIA committees (our national group). Many notable South Australian librarians and information professionals have come through the ranks of SALIN - attending events first of all, and then serving on the committee. Ask any Librarian or Information professional in South Australia if they have heard of SALIN and I am sure you will get a positive response. That's not what I would regard as "not notable." Minnametsa (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Minnametsa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment to Narson Did you consider that perhaps many of the members and supporters of SALIN work at the same institution, which just happens to be one of the biggest libraries in the state?? This would account for the same IP addresses, and further gives weight to the significance of this organisation in SA. These people are busy professionals who hardly have the time (or the inclination, need etc.) to canvass support for an organisation that they already believe in just because some small-time wikipedia editor decides to flex his/her muscles. Minnametsa (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)— Minnametsa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Read WP:MEATPUPPET. Canvassing seems to be exactly what they're doing. I'm going to emphasise again: Organisations like this must pass the notability guidelines at WP:ORG. No matter how many times you spout "ask your nearest librarian, he'll know what it is! See? It's notable!" it means squat if the subject matter fails WP:ORG. Ironholds (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just struck out the duplicate keep votes from an IP address (I don't believe that IP's votes generally count in AfDs anyway) and tagged User:Minnametsa as a SPA. I agree with Narson's comment about something dodgy going on here, though I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a single editor (hence the same IP being used alongside a SPA). Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as not meeting notability and sourcing requirements for an encyclopedic article. 'Notable' on Wikipedia is not a synonym for 'well-known'; the sources given do not establish notability per "significant coverage in reliable independent sources". EyeSerene^talk 13:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. One hit in Google News, and that looks like a press release. It's a nice little club for librarians in Australia that has occasional library tours and dinners. That's not notable. --John Nagle (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence that this topic has been covered significantly in independent sources. --Leivick (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. In one of the article's references, SALIN is mentioned but is not the focus of the study [22]. Another reference [23] was co-authored by a SALIN founder (or cofounder) and therefore is not an independent source. –Megaboz (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete There does not appear to be much in the way of independent, reliable sources so fails WP:V. I'd be willing to change my position if more sources were given. But right now, I'm not seeing it. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 HDMI. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HDMI Extender

Not notable by itself to warrant a article. if we have this we might as well have Component Extender, Composite Extender, DVI Extender. and the list goes on. Steph1393 (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems fairly notable to me.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why can't it be merged into HDMI and be presented as a section in that article? Rilak (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE AND REDIRECT To HDMI Arma virumque cano (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:56, 25 May 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, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HDMI. It deserves a mention as part of HDMI, but not in a article by itself. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:19, 30 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Roberto Silveira

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO as a politician. Has been tagged for notability for a couple of months since its creation (by me) and nothing has happened to the article. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 21:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Former mayor of a major Brazilian city--but this article needs work. Blueboy 96 23:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His page on the Portugues language Wikipedia pt:Jorge Roberto Silveira is more extensive and indicative of likelihood for meeting notability reqs, he has been a Mayor, he ran for Senator, etc. Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE for fixing articles. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:31, 24 May 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, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep mayors are generally notable per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#People. JJL (talk) 00:11, 30 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.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
-{{{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Tamil protests}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Tamil protests}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latvia–Luxembourg relations}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick parish}}