Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 19

< 18 March	20 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media Temple (second Nomination)

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stercorous

Definition article, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 05:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a possible neologism (if the article's text is to be believed), or an outright hoax, given the definition here. Ray^Talk 05:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, no confirmation of notability. WWGB (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because we're not a dictionary, and certainly not a dictionary of hoaxes. Even my Latin stretches far enough to establish that this isn't kosher. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsensical hoax. Deor (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think this is fairly well established as a hoax, and is a snowball candidate. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 00:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DAV Sasaram

I'm going to regret not speedy-ing this, because this is just about the spammiest school article I've ever seen. My rationale is: 1. I have no clue about advertising culture in India 2. I would really like input from WP:INDIA, and 3. the article has been here since Feb 20; a few more days won't make a big difference. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy G11~~ I think your instincts are right on the money. This would require a complete rewrite (and deletion of some of those images) to become encyclopedic. Ray^Talk 05:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep following DGG. Can I feel snow? Ray^Talk 02:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is written exactly as an advertisement, with sections like "About Ourselves" and words like outstanding and excellent being passed off as encyclopedic information. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – Wikipedia is not your own web host. MuZemike 16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spam is usually easy to remove. I did so, leaving in only the elements customary in school articles--I even kept in one part that one I do really think suitable but that that most similar school articles include the details of the uniform. I removed most of the photos. I don;t necessarily think anything is wrong with illustrating a school article with portraits of the assembled staffs, but if anyone disagrees, go to it. DGG (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; following good work by DGG this is no longer an advertisement. What is left is a reasonably factual page on a high school that now requires sourcing and expansion. TerriersFan (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep per DGG's personal initiative on improving it. MuZemike 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep per DGG's improvements. Though I originally marked for speedy, the article has been salvaged. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Nrswanson (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoaxes are elligible for speedy. Tone 20:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Weakest Link Africa

Total hoax, nothing anywhere online indicating it exists, nothing at the official website. This article is, in fact, the weakest link. Goodbye. roux 05:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Creator was probably RMHED sock and has "retired". Can't this just be speedied now and avoid the drahmaz the creator hoped for? --64.85.221.68 (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G5) – article created by a sock puppet of banned user RMHED (talk · contribs). MuZemike 17:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I haven't seen any proof (apart from the loud quacking) that it's RMHED, and I imagine an admin would decline the speedy due to that lack. Alas. //roux 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 19:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoax isn't, for some incredibly stupid reason I'm sure, a valid CSD criterion. //roux 19:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article is about an album that has not yet been released Untick (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the alleged release date has been extended numerous times by the record company. I think the third proposed release date just passed and no new date has been issued. Delete. — R ² 10:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreleased/future albums are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, per WP:MUSIC. No such coverage provided or found. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Searching pulls up no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 14:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreleased, little or no media coverage, poorly sourced. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:V.

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by the IP who originally prodded it [1] (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Die in Jerusalem

Procedural nomination: Originally tagged for prod by an IP as "Non-notalbe [sic] film. No reliable sources" NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comatose Vigil

Article about a band without significant assertion of notability or sources. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 04:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for non-notability. No sources, none to be found, and no albums one notable labels (I don't hold Solitude to be notable, and there's only one on that label anyway). Drmies (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 14:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, come back when line up is known or any sources can be found. Deletion Mutation 16:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mercer Union

Please delete, this is an article about an art center no more notable than any other. The only references are to articles that are really about an artist who displayed there, not the gallery. (This nomination made on behalf of Special:Contributions/141.161.68.46, who is unable to create this page.) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 03:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established through quick Google search this article could be easily expanded no reason for delete. I belive the only reason it was put up in the fisrt place was because of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Kyle1278 (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Mercer Union has been around for 30 years. The article needs more sources, agreed, but those can be easily found. Over the next few days I'll expand the article. freshacconci talktalk 03:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While some additional sources would be useful, the Eli Langer case — already noted in the article — is sufficient notability in and of itself. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has achieved more notability than a run of the mill art center. Ty 18:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Stone the Crow, Redirect the others to their album articles. Avi (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lifer (song)

Non-notable song, which fails with the criteria. Canniba loki 03:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these songs fails with the criteria:

Redirect, and possibly merge to the relevant album article. While the main article might be a problem because of its qualifier, none of the additional pages show any signs of being bad redirect titles. I believe that Lifer (song) also qualifies because it would help point to the right page from a hatnote or possibly future dabpage - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 14:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to respective album articles. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 14:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect all to relevant album articles. JamesBurns (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stone the Crow, charted, now sourced. Redirect the rest. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete & redirect, the only song that charted consists mainly of original research. Deletion Mutation 16:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Market Hero

I believe this group is not notable, as I can find no reliable sourcing to verify the claims made. I had a brief search, which didn't turn up anything... --Izno (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Band is notable per WP:Band #6 - band members have been in other notable bands. There is an entry for the band on Allmusic. A Google search results in many hits for the band. I agree that the article has unsourced claims, but per WP:ATD, the article should be improved/edited as an alternative to deletion. --Rudimae (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Number 6 looks fairly unstable to me. I would have to even further trim it to keep the verifiable stuff, but even if the article is verifiable, that doesn't mean it has RSs... As for Google search, see WP:GOOGLETEST. The number of hits is not a factor of notability (though it increases the chance someone will find the reliable source that I am asking for!). --Izno (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realized after I wrote that about Google that I should have been more specific. I didn't mean that because there are X number of hits that it means they're notable. I meant a Google search provided links to other sites, such as Allmusic, that verify notability. --Rudimae (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Allmusic and Rockdetector entries are a good start. A few news items also.--Michig (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic shouldn't be used as an RS except where the writer is known to be reliable. Can you prove that Corey is known for that? As for rockdetector, that certainly doesn't allow BMH to satisfy notability, as all it is is a mention, whereas the GNG (And MUSIC#C1) say that the group needs the reliable sourcing with in depth analysis to prove notability. Could you do me the favor of looking for any reliable source that would prove notability? --Izno (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic fulfils the requirements of being a reliable source, at least as far as the biographies and reviews on the site are concerned, and there is nothing in the link you provided to demostrate otherwise, and I don't see why their writers need to be independently proven to be reliable. WP:GNG says nothing about requiring "in depth analysis" and neither does MUSIC#C1; They require significant coverage in reliable sources. The band also passed MUSIC#C6 as they have several members from other notable bands (40 Below Summer - 5 albums, plenty of coverage) and Flaw (3 albums, major-label releases).--Michig (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:BAND (criteria 2–12); criteria 1 = It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. I do not have how to ensure that the information that is in the webpages of Allmusic and Rockdetector was not sent by someone related to this "band". Canniba loki 19:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic biographies are written by their staff. Rockdetector entries are written by the author of several published rock music guides, Garry Sharpe-Young. I don't really understand your reasoning.--Michig (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I raised the issue of the usage of allmusic.com as a reliable source on the appropriate forum on wikipedia Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#allmusic.com. The website refuses to correct glaring mistakes notably in getting it's credits and personnel listed correctly. One of their most experienced reviewers even claimed two artists with different names were one-in-the same artist, which was patently untrue. As experienced in the Palladium AfD not long ago, they even mixed up album releases from different artists. What's frustrating is they have a mechanism for reporting errors but they seem unwilling to correct their errors even when pointed out to them with citations. I think we need to revisit sometime what can be used as a reliable source for music article. JamesBurns (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 14:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: essentially a band in name only - no official releases. See my comments on allmusic.com above. JamesBurns (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC) strike sockpuppets, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A band that has toured and which is recording an album is not a "band in name only".--Michig (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - limited coverage, non notable. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC) strike sockpuppets, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since this band contains several members from two other notable bands, deletion is really not a good idea. If the band contained members from only one notable band, with the amount of coverage they have received, mentioning BMH in that band's article would be a good option, but it would make no sense to add this to both the 40 Below Summer and Flaw articles, so the only sensible option is to keep this article here. --Michig (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, not yet notable. Deletion Mutation 15:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Cohen

Not notable. Contains links to Mr Cohen's commercial website and the like. My Notability banner was removed without comment, by a user name obviously created for the purpose (as was a bot's Orphaned banner). I've already removed Shawn Cohen spam from the article Ophthalmology. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject seems to have some notability as the co-author of a few glaucoma related papers, specifically [2], [3],[4]74.69.39.11 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [5] is noteworthy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcarovallmd (talk • contribs) 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paper mentioned by Andrewcarovallmd above has only been cited twice, not really noteworthy when compared to the way highly influential work of researchers passing WP:PROF here typically is. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Andrewcarovallmd has been created exclusively to add this comment. My apologies if I am wrong, but the article looks very much like an advertisement to me. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The article is from the AMA, who I do not believe accepts advertising.~~74.69.39.11 (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC) My bad.74.69.39.11 (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the Wikipedia article. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete I see no evidence that he passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like Pete.Hurd, I could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either - news coverage not particularly impressive.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am Dr. Shawn Cohen. It was brought to my attention that this biography was made on my behalf, unknown to me. I did not solicit this Article or begin it. I am truly an Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology, at McGill University, dedicated to patient education on my area of expertise, specifically glaucoma.

In keeping with this goal, I have absorbed 100% of the costs to provide free access to up-to-date patient-centered information on glaucoma, cataracts and other diseases. The links on Super Eye Care are to external valuable sites that patients have evaluated as being very useful for them. Not all of my published works, or current projects, are available on the internet, for copyright reasons. As well, some of my National Committee memberships, are not publicly known and will not be seen on the internet.

My free link to a Messages or clinical pearls section is a list of vital tips, some of which have saved people from damage. My eBook can be downloaded for free. I have NO pharmaceutical advertising on my site. All the lecture dates given are for FREE public educational seminars for anyone who wishes to attend. Yes, I am a Professional Speaker and can be hired to coach and teach organizations but only because I have 13 years of University education to back up this expertise. I participate in free discussion boards, like Topix, to help address public concerns on glaucoma and I personally respond to all emails sent to me directly through my website. When I am alone with a patient I can help one person at a time. On the internet, I can relay this information to people I am unable to help in person.

If any material on this or other sites with my involvement are deemed inappropriate, please contact me directly and I will make sure that they are in keeping with the above highest standard. If Wikipedia will serve to allow me perpetuate a pure educational goal for glaucoma and eye care advocacy, I would be honored greatly for your support. I remain humbly dedicated to the needs of the public for their support in dealing with glaucoma and other eye diseases.70.27.246.47 (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Shawn Cohen, MD[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete He certainly has published a lot but not much has been published about him. I'd be happy to swing the other way, however, if that can be remedied. Basket of Puppies 03:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability criteria. ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 11:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per the professor test. Eusebeus (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 11:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web2project

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caseydk&oldid=278253686, there's no product yet so it can't be notable yet. Doesn't look like db-spam and I can't db-notability software, so taking to AfD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more sources can be added. Basket of Puppies 03:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No prejudice against re-creating it once the software has been released and has received third-party reviews. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet more non-consumer task management software. Does every single one of these packages think marketing on Wikipedia is the way to go? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of meeting WP:Notability, and none found in gsearch. The parent project, dotProject, also isn't coming up with notability, so a redirect probably isn't a good option here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O'monte Jackson

Unsourced, a sophomore in college is not someone who has competed at a fully professional level or at the highest levels of the amateur level. Does not meet WP:ATHLETE. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no demonstration of notability. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Ray^Talk 05:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Third team all-conference in a mid-major conference does not rise to the level of notability needed to warrant an article for a college athlete. DarkAudit (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was '. Redirect has has already been done. StarM 03:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bass player

There is only one article linked here that is actually an article. The other is a redlink. I don't know if this is okay or not, but it seems to me that this is pointless. Belasted (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Bassist. FYI, you can do this yourself, no need to bring it to AFD. In fact, you can non-admin close the AFD and do it right now. 98.212.129.124 (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly redirected. There was no need to bring this to AfD per before nominating an article for deletion, point 4. Now, if the Nom could contact an admin, like MBisanz ^talk to get this closed off. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This needs to be a dabpage with 3 alternatives, Bass Player (the album), Bassist, and Bass Player (magazine). The third is a redlink, which per MOS:DABRL is acceptable since it has incoming links from multiple other articles requesting the article be written. In any case I'll write it tomorrow if I get a chance. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Bashundhura City mall fire

WP:NOTNEWS §hawn hath 02:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retitle (to Bashundhara City shopping complex ) - The Article should be about the Mall itself. The fire, and the size of it, makes it notable and should constitute a section of it... not the entirety of the Article. I can work on it a bit tonight. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The move has been compleated. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bashundhara City -- @Exit2DOS2000, there is already the article on the mall, with appropriate section on the fire. No need to duplicate the content. User:Hatashe just copy pasted content from the existing article on the mall, and then also pasted the entire news item from Wikinews (contrary to Wikinews licensing). This should be redirected to the mall article. --Ragib (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case Merge & Redir. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is not much to merge. As I mentioned, User:Hatashe did a fork of the original page by copy-paste, and also did a (copyvio) paste of content from WikiNews. Sorry that you had to spend time fixing the forked page ... how about taking a look at the existing article? :) Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the forked page wasnt a big problem, I just wish the Nom. had put in as much effort as you did, and noted that this was a WP:FORK of Bashundhara City. (no barb intended, I AGF). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Hinder. A merger should be accompanied by a redirect to retain the edit history. Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Winkler

Not much to say beyond his involvement in Hinder, a relatively new band with just a few hits. I had a merge request up for at least a few weeks, no complaints. Did the merge, I feel satisfactorily, tonight. Article is frequently vandalized and barely watched. CSZero (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect: FYI, you can do this right now. Just do a non-admin close and redirect it. 98.212.129.124 (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chūbu-Doka

Originally ProD tagged for being an unsourced dictionary definition. Author removed the ProD tag and added a slew of references.... well, actually what he added was a single reference (a link to a Japanese-English dictionary) two large see-also sections, and a reading list for people interested in lean production, none of which helps this to pass WP:DICT. Google turns up nothing on this term, making me also question notability. Author (LeanGuru) is also apparently a SPA, and his or her username makes me wonder if there might also be a conflict of interest in play. -Senseless!... says you, says me 01:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete or Redirect to Lean Manufacturing. This is a non-notable dictionary term which is unlikely to evolve into a full article. Isn't that one of the Speedy Categories? 98.212.129.124 (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure en.wiktionary.org would take it since its a non-English term that hasn't passed into standard usage in English. I originally was thinking A3 (since its little more than a "see also" section), but since the PROD was declined, I felt going with AfD would be safer. -Senseless!... says you, says me 02:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into Lean Manufacturing --H8erade (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible hoax: Dictionary reference source does not give any mention of this term. --DAJF (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reference to Daijirin is to a different word. I don't see "doka" when I search the external links. Fg2 (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely hoax. Aside from turning up nothing on Google, the Dictionary reference seems like smoke and mirrors. Neither the hiragana (ちゅうぶどうか) nor what I think would be the Kanji (中部働化) appear on that page. Nor do these terms yield anything from Google. Seems like a novel reworking of "Jidoka".--Shunpiker (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The dictionary reference is to "mottainai" which (if this dictionary is to be believed) means "more than one deserves" or "wasteful". --Shunpiker (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Evans

Non-notable working actor. No awards or nominations, all roles very minor (his role on Emmerdale is the 790th role listed for the series at IMDb. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Bongo matic 01:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That 790th role listed argument doesn't work. IMDB entries for soap operas routinely list characters alphabetically or in (reverse) order of appearance which directly affects the listing of recent or past cast members. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the listings I've seen, for non-key characters, it's in reverse order of number of appearances (more appearances come first). Bongo matic 13:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not a reliable source, IMDb listings for episodes of long-running soap operas are very incomplete. According to IMDb's current episode listings, Kylie Minogue was only in 5 episodes of Neighbours! DWaterson (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the IMDB entry for Half-Moon Investigations lists in incidental supporting character first, the lead's sidekick second and the lead third. Clearly the order in IMDB credits are nowhere near reliable.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of characters from Shameless. 98.212.129.124 (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will somebody please fix link so this discussion page can be accessed from the article. Link from article is currently redlined. Untick (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems OK to me (I have just got here by clicking on the link in the AfD message). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong keep. Amongst other roles, a main cast member of a major award-winning show, and a long-term (6 years) cast member of a long-running soap opera broadcast on a major channel. Passes WP:ENTERTAINER easily. DWaterson (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep long-running stints on a couple of shows; marginally notable. JJL (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep. One minor character on a TV series probably isn't enough. I'd say two just about scrapes it. If nothing else, once someone claims notability for two TV programmes, redirects stop making sense. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP, not actually a deletion request. I'll be watching these closely, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Code Lyoko characters 2

As suggested in the edit warring noticeboard, I am nominating these two articles for deletion because they were already merged at AfD. An editor disagrees with the merger, and two sets of edit wars later he simply cannot be swayed from the position that he must be right. The articles are in no better a state than they were when they were merged, just worded differently. As he admits on Talk:Odd Della Robbia, the current state of the article is all he plans to make of it. I've tried to point him to a featured article for an example of how it should look to no avail. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep – this is what dispute resolution is for. May I suggest a request for comment or possibly informal mediation instead of another AFD? Also, no one has looked for any input from WP:FRANCE or WP:TELEVISION; that should at least be tried, first. MuZemike 01:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - main character from a highly popular tv series, and also, i never said this was all i was ever going to do with it, i said thats all i had for now on odd's page, aelita's is still being worked on, i said with oddd that if it needed more i would try to expand it. get your facts straight Jeremie Belpois (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Incredibad. (The people who chose to delete, did not address why they thought the redirect shouldn't exist.) Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We Like Sportz

Non-notable song. It is unsourced, it is not a single, has never charted, and nothing suggests any notability. The only purpose of the article seems to be to describe the music video. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Incredibad. Sources exist, and it kinda was released as a video single but you will delete it anyway. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable non-charting song WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album, I see no reason not to. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-single songs generally don't have their own article, and this one is no exception. Tavix (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity In Team Work

Simple case of original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this were to be kept, it would really need to be cleaned up and wikified as currently it is just a big blob of text. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 03:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my above reason. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 03:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Plus, non-notable. Wikipedia is not a non-peer reviewed unedited journal. Bongo matic 10:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per MathCool comment. -Axmann8 (Talk) 12:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elina Fuhrman

A search shows some ghits resulting from her work, but no evidence she's notable for her work. No evidence of these unnamed and uncited awards she's won, and without those she's just another CNN correspondent. StarM 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any info on these awards she's supposedly won. If this info was added, then I might reconsider, depending on which awards they were. Otherwise fails WP:N. --Ged UK 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having passed the "minimum level of notability" i say keep.--Judo112 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment do you have any evidence that she's passed this minimum level? StarM 00:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could ask you the same question.. but opposit?--Judo112 (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could, but that's explained at the top. --Ged UK 13:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I said how I'd searched and didn't find evidence. Since you can't prove the non-existence of something, the onus is on those saying it does exist. StarM 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gnews confirms her existence, but since this consists almost entirely of reporting from her and not about her, I conclude she fails WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 06:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep She does seem to have won awards for her journalism and it is a natioan network.... Vartanza (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment except there's no evidence of these awards. StarM 12:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to College of Charleston. MBisanz ^talk 07:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

College of Charleston EMS

A student organization that has no notability beyond its campus. I added a small paragraph on the group to the main article on the college; this article, however, seems more like an advertisement for the group, which is why I brought it here. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Axmann8 (Talk) 12:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —87.252.35.195 (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —87.252.35.195 (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. —87.252.35.195 (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent Article (College of Charleston). A Educational Facility providing EMS services is Notable. The 1 unit EMS service by itself is not (unless RS's can disprove that). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to College of Charleston. Notable feature; well worth a section in the target. TerriersFan (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn; no need for rd. JJL (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 11:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per WP:PRESERVE. It'll need to be pruned, but it's a noteworthy student-run service and aspect to the university. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also placed a rescue tag on the article. We do have a category for college ambulance service articles and if someone can show some RS indicating notability for this outfit, I'd be happy to change my vote to keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lei Gong. While it seems that this is not a hoax, the lack of article development in the past 4 years (beyond this one-line sentence) hints at that there will be no article improvement in the future either. Redirection seems like the best trade-off between opinions expressed in this AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Xiang

Not notable or informative. No reason to have it. Possible hoax Wetman88 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I'm no expert, but in the absence of references or anything else, and without sources on Google, I see no reason to keep. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a hoax [6], but the lack of more than a few mentions suggests this isn't a widely accepted part of the legend of Lei Gong. An intriguing character. Unlike some gods of thunder, Lei Gong knows better than to try to throw lightning bolts and drive at the same time. Perhaps the legend of A Xiang can be part of an ad campaign for not talking on your cell while driving, or at least for having a designated driver if you go out partying. Mandsford (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At first this looked like a good solid ref, but it's lulu.com. Google isn't giving me much that isn't sourced from wikipedia. Artw (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This AfD was one of the last actions of User:Wetman88 before he was indef-blocked for vandalism and disruption (having previously been blocked yesterday). At worst the article should be merged/redirected to Lei Gong. The given reference at that page, The Encyclopedia of Eastern Mythology by Rachel Storm (ISBN: 9780754800699), may provide more info, so I'd recommend leaving this page here for the moment in the (vain?) hope it can be expanded in future. --DeLarge (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable, no WP:RS Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: Its not obviously non-notable, unless someone can posit an argument to that effect. While there is no evidence for notability yet, I'd say post a notability template and give it a few months to see if someone can find some refs. Could turn into an interesting article later. Locke9k (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Lovenguth

The only shred of notability I can source is that he is running for the Florida State Senate in 2010. pablo_hablo. 18:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in any way. Candidates for state legislature offices usually do not merit their own articles, and if they do, it is not on that basis alone. If Lovenguth is elected to the Florida Senate, then a better-written, better-organized biographical article may be created -- but not before then. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is he running for that or for US Senate (Martinez's retiring seat)? This is clearly non-notable, there is no news about him at all (a google news search) BrianY (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I've found online, Lovenguth is actually a failed state Senate candidate from last year. The article's creator (whom I suspect is Lovenguth himself) has now added to the article a sentence claiming that he is "the democrat candidate for the Florida 2010 United States Senate." First of all, he is not the Democratic candidate, as the primary isn't for over a year. And second of all, I can find absolutely no press coverage of Lovenguth entering the race. Perhaps he intends to run, and that's nice, but in no way does it make him notable enough for his own article. In the event that he is nominated by the Democrats in 2010, then an article could be created. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. Even if he is running for the U.S. Senate, he will be facing a multiple-candidate primary just to make it into the general election, and he has not established independent news coverage yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should delete this page. It's not worthy of Wikipedia. No mention online other than a blog but that may be his friend's blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.232.152.183 (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Riedel

Subject is not notable and the article is clearly promotional in nature ElKevbo (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.66.39 (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment subject is the author of 4 books dealing with detailing day hikes in various parts of SoCal.74.69.39.11 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - clearly promotional resume; no assertion or evidence of any notability whatsoever; could have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about requesting a speedy but didn't feel comfortable given that there are (weak) claims of notability as a published author. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Gnews search can confirm the existence of those books, but they don't seem to rise to the threshold of notability themselves, either. Ray^Talk 06:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Norm Coleman. I've left a note on the relevant page about merging. Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Coleman

Mrs. Coleman lacks notability on her own. She's the wife of a former Senator, but notability is not inherited. She's tried out a bunch of careers ("aspiring actor, model, licensed insurance agent and mother", as well as inventor), but in none of these has she risen above bit player. She was involved in some painfully abstruse financial scandal, but even if that has notability, it's already covered in her husband's biography. The subject of this article, too, should also get a few lines here, but is not notable in her own right. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination is to redirct to Norm Coleman and mention the subject there. Some cursory searches don't indicate the subject is notable in her own right. The redirect is appropriate as it is a possible search term. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Norm Coleman as per LinguistAtLarge.--Cerejota (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Norm Coleman per WP:INHERITED. Jd027^talk 00:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Software

This does seem like spam, even if vaguely connected with a university. Note for instance the lead description, lifted from BusinessWeek, and the lack of third-party references. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.It seems to be a major company in their own field. The article needs some improvement and third party references but it doesn't really look like spam. I found this news among others. Laurent (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needs a lot of work, but seems to be a well-established, viable company. Needs references and a rewrite of milestones - they are lifted from company website. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very weakly. I edited the article to remove the copyrighted text from Business Week and the official site, and what's left is a very slight stub. A possibly interesting business whose article gets lost in systems-speak. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are quite a few articles about its spin off company, Critical Links, on TMC: [7] Laurent (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aksyon Radyo Bacolod

Unnotable radio station, PROD removed. ApprenticeFan Messages Work 12:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been cited in major Bacolod/Negros newspapers, such as the Visayan Daily Star and the Sun.Star Bacolod. I'll take the time to clean it up, and, following convention, the article has been moved to its callsign. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What the articles needs is a major cleanup. --Bluemask (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Licensed radio stations in the United States are routinely considered notable, so I don't see why this one should be treated any differently. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SM City Tungko

Verifiability in question. No ghits outside entry in templates. Location is not even mentioned in the main webpage of SM Prime Holdings at [8]. Only "clue" of existence is this unnamed mall at this website [9]--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsourced and not yet announced. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 07:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says here that the SM mall will be located in Tala, Novaliches, not in Brgy. Tungko, SJDM. Secaundis (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There will be no SM City Tungko. http://www.smprime.com/News.php?BlurbID=2041 Secaundis (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask that you quote where it says that, as I cannot find where it says it will not be, on that page. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SM Supercenter Novaliches

"Castanares said the SM mall is part of the proposed 500-hectare estate that would be developed by the consortium proposing the MRT-7 at Tala, Novaliches into a residential shopping area". Secaundis (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaa I see what u mean now... It also says "”SM Malls that will be constructed in MRT 7 will help decongest Metro Manila,” said Roberto Castanares" ... Malls in the plural ... but, sadly, I cant find much in the way of RS's even under its original name. Delete without prejudice of recreation at a better time. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It Says here that SM will built 3 more malls. SM Supercenter Novaliches, SM San Pablo (in Laguna), and SM Commonwealth in QC, walang nakasulat na SM City Tungko. So there are no plans that SM will built a mall in Tungko. Sorry my english is not that good! :) Secaundis (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No official mention at SM website, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Wouldn't oppose recreation if/when this is officially announced. Only reference indicates that a mall will be built by SM Group, but doesn't name the mall or specify where it will be located. I'd call this a borderline WP:HOAX but I think I'll WP:AGF and assume that someone was just going off rumors instead of RS. I'm also concerned with a copyright vio of the images on the page but that's a separate issue. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred J Speakman

No noted notability. Only listed reference is a photo of a plaque, and no other sources found on a quick search. fuzzy510 (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found 105 gBook hits, including a reference to a Primary School Library Books, where a book is described as "..a very highly praised..." and a web entry that calls Speakman a "...respected naturalist...". 74.69.39.11 (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Hi. Please read comment below regarding Speakman's notability. Thankyou

Fred Speakman grew up and lived in Epping Forest and in his later years ran a Field study centre at High Beach, where Speakman pond still bears his name. other titles by him are A Poachers Tale Torty of Woodend Out of the Wild Tracks, Trails and Signs a forest by Night

I hope that this information is of help

regards

Tony O'Connor District Museum Officer Epping Forest District Museum 39/41 Sun Street Waltham Abbey Essex EN9 3TY 01992 716882

Northmetpit (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to come down on the side of keep here because he has a blue plaque erected here[10]. In the UK, a blue plaque is erected to to commemorate a link between a location and a famous person (or event). I note also that Speakman was active long before the internet (he died in 1979, I think) so it is unlikely that we would find coverage of him there and we would need to resort to paper sources. Despite that, there are a lot of hits in Google books, as noted by user 74.69.39.11, of his books and of reviews of his books, from which we glean snippets that Speakman was a "famous naturalist", "one of Britain's best-known naturalist-authors", and "Mr. Speakman is among Britain's leading naturalist-authors". There is, I think, an article to be written here but it needs more work and access to paper sources. If consensus is for delete, I would be grateful if the article could be userfied to my userspace for further work. Thanks, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Blue Plaques are rarely doled out in the UK and only to by definition notables. But could do with more sourcing on his books and background--Moloch09 (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sourcing is going to be an issue given the time and place of activity, but a quick troll through Google books shows his works featuring prominently in education and book sales yearbooks in the 50s and 60s, there's a British Pathe clip from 1968 of him leading trips that makes a point of showing all his books to paint him as a renowned expert. People are interviewed in a city of London oral history of urban children retreats remembering meeting him (as if hew were a star), and most of the mentions of him in naturalist contexts come across as an appeal to authority when using his name. The problem is, there's not much online reference for popular naturalism education of the early 1960s. Despite that, it seems a fair bet that he was then much better known than prominent British scientists of his day whose notability is today easier to reference. Also, his illustrated books seem today much in demand from the antiquarian book trade. T L Miles (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maha Thammarachathirat

I cannot find any sources through Google. If Phra Maha Thammrachathirat was indeed the first king or the Ayutthaya kingdom then there would be stuff written about him. Anti venin 11:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One source is listed in the article, Googlebooks shows several others exist. [11] [12] [13] Edward321 (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You don't have to go past a Google Books search in the Latin alphabet for the article title [14] to confirm that he was king. Kings are notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Love Again (Massari album)

Article created in October 2008 as a future release but 5 months later there is nothing here: no sources whatsoever and no info to go on. Not notable and violates WP:CRYSTAL at the very least. Even "confirmed" track list is unreferenced. I tagged the article a month ago and nothing of substance has been added and nothing has been improved. Suggest deletion or merge to artist page. - eo (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing said about the album on the official pages. Couldn't find much from other sources, besides 90k Ghits for the single of the same name. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 23:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Return Ticket (Film)

Unreleased film. One of the problems is that sources may be in Bengali but still, I can't find info about it beyond the official website, can't find indication that the director has made other films, can't find info about the lead actors. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did fins "Masud Parvez (Sohel Rana) has directed a film named ‘Return Ticket’ after a long time", but not much else. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable, and unreleased film. Possibly spam by the article creator, which seems to be an account created solely to spam WP about this film and actors. There is no significant buzz in Bangladeshi media about this movie. --Ragib (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the film does not yet exist, or if it does, it is non-notable. Unionsoap (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Keeling

Questionable notability. Small parts of small productions; if the main claim to fame is ending third on a Grease talent show, that's not enough. tedder (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —87.252.35.195 (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn per WP:BIO with WP:COI concerns. Reads like a CV not an encyclopedia entry. Eusebeus (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:Creative. This actor had a significant, regular and recurring role in the notable TV show "Grease: You're the One That I Want!".(2007). Untick (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He came third. Peridon (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "The show ran with mixed to positive reviews, and to sold out crowds, in Sarasota, FL at the Asolo Repetory Theatre from October to November". Wow! "He was replaced in 'Tale' by Aaron Lazar. It appeared Keeling made the proper decision when Tale announced its closure for November 9. Grease closed on January 4, 2009." According to my maths, Tale ran longer than Grease. "Who is best known as the third-place finisher in the reality casting show". No comment. Peridon (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guadeloupe Revolution

This is another creation by User:Jersay, this time attempting to portray a brief period of political unrest in Guadeloupe as a revolution. This is flagrantly inaccurate POV pushing, as I can't find any description of these events as a revolution in any reliable source. The name of this article appears to be an invention of the article's creator. Any useful, verifiable information here could be salvaged to History of Guadeloupe, but mostly we are looking at a big WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:SYN violation. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - It transpires that there's nothing to merge, since there's already the much better 2009 French Caribbean general strikes, of which the present article is a POV fork. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. What a difference between the two (in style and scope, but especially in sources). You're right, there seems to be nothing to merge. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any useful information--H8erade (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the deletion. We have 2009 French Caribbean general strikes which fully covers the subject.--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The happenings in Guadeloupe could be translated 'general strike' - but they are far from a revolution. also the table is grave : 25000 workers against president sarkosy.. LOL The rest of the text is OK and might be included in the main articel (guadeloupe general strike) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.63.145.166 (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is redundant to the article on the strikes and seems to have been made up. I note that the editor who created the article has been blocked for being a sock puppet. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Kutty

Notability not established --Docku: What's up? 18:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —--Docku: What's up? 18:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some gScholar hits, gBooks, gHits. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because even though I don't see a lot of in-depth discussion of this person, he has published (an article in CounterPunch, for instance) and, more importantly, he's cited continuously in CBC stories. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is now identified as a stub - wait . Also it may require general cleanup eventully. This person is an author of many (Notable that way). --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of citations available by him at Google Scholar, and about him, too. Easy to clean up; I've started the job for you. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jack Russell terrier . MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Terrier

Notability as a breed has never been established, and no reliable sources appear to be available to establish notability. Non-reliable sources [15] as well as the talk page seem to indicate that the Atlas Terrier originated from a single breeder, who created the article. The article has finally acquired references, but they pertain more to the breeder than to Atlas Terriers, making this article something of a coatrack. The incident detailed in the references may belong in WikiNews, but overshadows the actual subject of this article, and does little to justify keeping it. Shunpiker (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Do we have a breed standard? The article sounds like a newspaper news. There is no information about the dogs. (except that they have been treater awful) Warrington (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - AFAIK, there is no guideline established specifically for dog breed notability, although there has been discussion on the matter. The general notability guideline suggests that a topic should have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in order to be presumed notable. In this case, Atlas Terriers do not seem to have received such coverage. -- Shunpiker (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The poor doggy, Ok, found some things http://www.freebase.com/view/user/mikeshwe/pet_breeds/dog_breed_group

http://www.thebreedsofdogs.com/CHIEN_DE_LATLAS.htm

http://purebreadpupsa-z.blogspot.com/2007/01/atlas-terrier.html h ttp://www.greatdogsite.com/breeds/details/Atlas_Terrier/ , but I am not sure... But still I have to admit I never heard of the breed and Jack Russels were for a lond time (or are still not. Not sure) considered as a breed. Maybe we should just wait and see what will happen, one can always create a new article if and when they are registered. Warrington (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Chien d'atlas" is a different breed, related to sheepdogs. The other references are from self-published sources, freebase and blogspot. I contested the application of the {{hoax}} tag to this article, because enough non-reliable sources are available to indicate that the topic was not just made up for wikipedia. But I have yet to find any reliable sources which mention atlas terriers, aside from the newspaper article which mentions that atlas terriers were present when the Autumn Briar Kennel was raided. -- Shunpiker (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What they asy is this: Atlas Terriers are direct descendants of the Jack Russell Terrier. One distinguishing difference between the two breeds is the fact that Atlas Terriers can exist with a solid-colored coat. Atlas Terriers have a coat that may be a variety of different colors, including merles and brindles. They may also have white markings on their collars, toes, face, or chest. The two types of Atlas Terrier coats are smooth and wire. Atlas Terriers are an off shoot of the Jack Russell Terrier. The Jack Russell Terrier is the result of many different terrier breeds being crossed together. Breeders created the Jack Russell Terrier for their working abilities and paid little attention to their looks. Throughout history, more and more people have bred dogs for cosmetic reasons as opposed to their original working purpose(s). The Jack Russell Terrier is a perfect example of this concept. Contemporary breeders attempted to breed the Jack Russell Terrier into a mostly white dog, and they regarded the multi-colored specimens as non-breedable. Unfortunately, the gene that causes the mostly white coloration has led certain Jack Russell Terriers to become deaf. The coloration of the Atlas Terrier greatly reduces its chance of deafness.''

I don't feel sure enough to say either keep or delete. Warrington (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for this description? -- Shunpiker (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one h ttp://www.greatdogsite.com/breeds/details/Atlas_Terrier/ , but the link is spam listed on Wikipedia... so... Warrington (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a mention in Jack Russell terrier article. Insufficient coverage for a stand alone article. Woof! ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Based on the current sources available, I can't justify a separate article for this new breed. A merge with Jack Russel Terrier sounds like the best course at this point. When/if the subject gains individual notability, it can be broken out to its own article again. A redirect is justified, since this is a possible search term. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources specifically describing the "Atlas Terrier" can be found. There are a ridiculous number of offshoot "breeds" like this out there; most of them are bred by no more than a few individual breeders, and lack recognition from the larger dog-breeding community (i.e, kennel clubs and breed registries). The news story hanging on this WP:COATRACK is certainly sad, but it doesn't add to the notability of the breed. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G7. Non-admin closure. Matt (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency warning system for vehicles

Although there is certainly a topic lying beneath all of the words in this article, the article itself is in my view unsalvagable. It purports to describe an emergency warning system for vehicles; fails to make it clear whether it is describing fact or academic fantasy; is riddled with obtuse abstruse sentences, including sentences without verbs, making comprehension a nightmare. It makes sweeping assertions (such that EWSV will be self-orienting or of open network architectures ... surely speculation and/or one specific instance of the class).

It looks to me as if the article is connected with a research project (COOPERS) and that the author is confusing the aims of his project with the more general field.

As for policy, the article does not meet a notability standard: no claim is made for the notability of this flight of fancy, nor is any definition of the subject given sufficient to enable other users to research the notability of the subject. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced technical essay. Not sure what the right name for this would be but this isn't it. JJL (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Bomani

The article is a complete Autobiography and breaches the Neutral point of view, No original research and Notability policies in Biographies of living persons. Hekerui (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep--nominator is quite right on most counts, but this search has a couple of hits from the Sacramento Bee and Observer; coupled with the article from JET referenced in the article it might just squeak by. Of course, the spam needs cutting. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I looked at the coverage, and I agree with Drmies -- this squeaks by. That said, all the other issues have force. Ray^Talk 06:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I just did a bit of cleanup on this article, and it does has a number of claims that hint at notability, but it needs a lot of work... as far as the provided links go, the Blacknews.com link is a self released press release (read: advertisement), the JET article makes her out to be more of a landlord than anything, and the Essence link provides only a teaser about 4 different women... there are no references provided for anything other than she has authored 2 books, is a landlord with a million dollars worth of property, and is "creator of Bomani's Village Enterprises"... no references for childhood or education, and no concrete proof of notability... being the CEO of a company does not automatically allow someone to pass WP:N, and as an author, I'm not 100% sure she passes WP:CREATIVE either... She claims to have written a handful of books, but there is no mention of how successful those books were, nor how successful her company was... the WP:AUTO concerns bother me also... unless references are added to prove why she passes the notability concerns, I'm leaning towards delete for now... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nominator. Hekerui (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm concerned about the extravagant claims and obvious errors - there is no Westchester University, but she may have attended West Chester University, but then again that is not clear. It reads like a resume, not an article. I'd need a lot of convincing to change my mind about this one. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC) There are lots of hits on Google and Yahoo, but nothing in Google News. Is she famous in the African American community and in Sacramento, but not in the wider world? Is she bad at getting news copy? Bearian (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Lucas

Lacks notability. JaimeAnnaMoore (talk)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - perhaps a sysop can check if this is a repost of Erin Williams? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. I looked and the deleted Erin Williams article is probably about someone else. Tabercil (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Daughter of somebody famous, best friend of somebody semi-famous, but notability is not inherited. WP:BLP1E also applies as she doesn't seem to have done anything significant aside from appearing on a reality show. —97198 (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel that the above users seem to have not done their homework on this one. A couple of points, here. First, WP:BLP1E seems to have been misinterpreted in this case: Lucas' role in the television show is ongoing. She is a cast member after all. Also, the point that she is the daughter of Cliff Williams is irrelevant, yes, but should not disqualify the article's existence on those grounds, as some seem to be implying. In addition, in accordance with WP:BIO, I've found this source mentioning her, this source, this source, this source, this source, this source, this source, this source, and this source. So even though most of us Wikipedians wouldn't care about such a topic, the intended audience would, and our own policies that we do care about back this up. Jd027^talk 16:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Downs

This subject appears to fail WP:PROF. There is a pretty obvious WP:COI on the part of the creator, and the article is loaded with peacock terms. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a perfectly good article that is substantiated and of a notable individual. Of course, it can always be improved and added to. Dwain (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Review in Personnel Psychology vol. 51 issue 2 suggests he has done a fair bit of work in the "group narcissism" field. Ottre 21:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-active Recordings

Procedural nomination. User Michaelbarnett72 had placed several speedys on this page all of which were denied. I posted on his user page and said they'd have to take it to AfD. They placed the AfD template on the page but they appear not to have finished the nomination. At about the same time they commented on my talk page that they wanted to article deleted because "i wish for my own article on my own company to be deleted as its no longer relevant, the company has been dissolved, so i wish for the page to be removed." At the moment I'm neutral as although there's planty there to save it from speedy I'm less sure whether it meets our notability guidelines. If I have time I'll do further research and change my vote appropiately. Dpmuk (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage. For a record company that claims to have been around as long they have, only 200 ghits (total includes wiki mirrors) isn't that many. WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7. Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Brawler

Notability in question. No hits regarding this game or the authors. Probably made up Lenticel ^(talk) 22:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any relevant Google hits and it reads like nonsense. I think it's something someone made up just for fun. TJ Spyke 00:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as A7 and possibly G3. I think the fact that the creators of the series are 12 and 7 might speak for itself...it's most likely something they've made up. No Google hits, no news hits, non-notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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