Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 27

< 26 April	28 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. The consensus is that the deletion rationale is not based in policy and that prior consensus (clearly evidenced in earlier AfDs) has not changed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide methods

I get the anti censorship and anti disclaimer arguments, but lives are at stake here. Some of you may not care about this, but depressed people can and do use Wikipedia to learn about methods on how to commit suicide, including a suicidal member in my immediate family. With what we have seen in the media about the copycat effect for people committing suicide, TIME magazine, we should either delete this article or put a disclaimer on this article alone per WP:IAR. This is not a typical censorship case and I urge Wikipedians to understand the practical effect of having this article without any sort of prominent help hotline at the top of this article. JustGettingItRight (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This is the 6th nomination now and no actual new argument for deletion is presented. Anti-censorship and anti-disclaimer aren't simply "arguments" but wikipedia policy. You can't just use WP:IAR as a way to backdoor WP:JDLI. DSZ (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has content problems with respect to its scope--it is more like a general list of ways to die. It's also possible that any encyclopedic discussion of such methods can be merged to suicide. However, these are editing issues and not deletion issues. Nominator's rationale seems to be based entirely on emotion, which despite his claims to the contrary, makes this a very typical censorship case, and on that issue I see no reason to defy established guidelines. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:NOTCENSORED, I see no policy argument to delete. Encyclopaedic information. Chzz ► 07:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Chzz. Possibly speedy keep as no colourable argument to delete has been presented. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Wikipedia is not censored. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It is not a 'how-to' just an article listing the most common types of suicide, and is presented in a way that is neutral. To delete it simply because it covers a sensitive topic would simply be censorship. We must keep it as per WP:NOTCENSORED Trevor Marron (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I do not accept that "lives are at stake here" - i.e. remove this article or people will die - a few moments playing with Google shows that information on suicide methods is widely available on the Internet. Anyone feeling suicidal will simply look elsewhere. In any case the article is not a manual. Jll (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is still open, this would disrupt the process. X clamation point 16:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as delete per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 6. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia–Croatia relations

another random combination from the obsessive article creator. non resident ambassadors. no agreements whatsoever except establishing diplomatic ties in 1995. [1] LibStar (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, which is directly related to the issue of notability, see Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Nomination for deletion is pre-mature and could preempt and poison the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. The nominator has ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[2]. Wikipedia will not implode if these articles exist while discussion is on going. Martintg (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as random pairing lacking in third-party sources about the relationship that confirm its notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random, contrived and of no potential informative value ever. Dahn (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Colombia has an embassy in Austria, Croatia has an embassy in Brazil. The two countries signed one agreement, and that was to establish diplomatic relations. No indication of anything notable. If you have something to show otherwise, please share it with us rather than accusing us of poisoning a discussion. Mandsford (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, this guy really is obsessive. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 18:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No more so than the rest of us, I guess. He or she has his opinion, we have ours. It doesn't appear that the "put it on hold" proposal has stopped any rulings on these articles. I don't think the administrators want to deal with the flood that would result if the river is "dammed up" for awhile. Mandsford (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my opinion, a relationship between any two countries of the world is inherently notable. (BTW: calling an editor "obsessive" is a clear WP:ATTACK.) GregorB (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a number of these X-Y articles have been deleted in recent weeks, I would say at least 30, so relationships are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's either that, or the deletions were wrong. GregorB (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that WP:N is, or ever will be, satisfied. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style. Note to closing admin: Two of the three "keep" votes above are clearly invalid since the centralised discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. ~~The remaining "keep" vote immediately above is based on an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument involving a class of about 20,000 potential articles, many of which have been deleted already.~~ --Hans Adler (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but no, it isn't based on WP:OTHERSTUFF - I made no mention of "other" articles, existing or potential. GregorB (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I see what you mean. My point was that you seem to believe that all these 20,000 article topics are automatically notable, and that the deletions of dozens of such articles show that this is not an opinion shared by a majority of the community. I think that's still problematic, although probably no reason to dismiss your !vote. Sorry. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem - that was just my opinion, nothing more. I understand the frustration of having to go through the same process over and over, but if notability is the issue here, than it has to be assessed either on a per-article basis, over and over (because in this case prior discussion results can not be binding), or "once and for all" (barring WP:CCC, of course) in a global discussion. GregorB (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending the result of the centralized discussion. OTOH I'll try to improve the article in the meantime. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I hinted above: The result of the centralised discussion will either not cover cases such as this article (if there will be any result at all, which is far from clear at the moment). Or any demarcations it produces will be based on the outcomes of deletion discussions such as this one. If this is the best justification for this article that you can come up with, your !vote needs to be disregarded. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's something for the closing admin to decide. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability and verifiability guidelines are already in place and we should use them until the day comes when some newer guideline takes their place and not "keep" now in the hope of some more inclusive guideline or policy being created in the future. In this specific instance, no reliable sources discuss this alleged relationship in any non-trivial depth. The stub is completely unsourced, without even a bare assertion of notability. I find no sources elsewhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Finland relations

non resident ambassadors, the Finnish foreign ministry doesn't even say anything about Bangladesh relationship [3] LibStar (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, which is directly related to the issue of notability, see Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Nomination for deletion is pre-mature and could preempt and poison the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. The nominator has ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[4]. Wikipedia will not implode if these articles exist while discussion is on going. Martintg (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM is not a reason. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of third-party sources about the relationship that confirm its notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly contrived, simply replicating a random pairing "model" which has by now come to resemble spam. Dahn (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, how could we presume that there are significant reliable sources if the Finns themselves don't pay attention to it? Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nor does it appear to be very significant among the Bengalis either Bangladesh paper website and 2004 article which noted that "The trade between Finland and Bangladesh is insignificant." I consider most of these random pairings to be vandalism, but they have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than on the musings of a "task force". Mandsford (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started, it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that WP:N is, or ever will be, satisfied. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style. Note to closing admin: The two "keep" votes are clearly invalid since the centralised discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that a bit of a catch-22? In order to save it, you require that the centralized discussion resolve itself in a timely manner. Yet you state the centralized discussion depends on the result of this vote. Does WP:Deadline apply here with regard to your claim that we should not wait for the centralized discussion to resolve? -Moritheil (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What are you talking about? Our policies and guidelines codify consensus. Their purpose is to streamline those discussions whose outcome is predictable based on consensus in previous similar situations. Subject-specific notability guidelines don't legislate notability criteria, they interpret the general notability guidelines for a specific situation. And their content obviously depends on previous case law. Here is where this case law is being produced.
  In the current charged atmosphere (created by mass-creation of obviously non-notable articles, which caused a predictable "deletionist" reaction, which in turn caused a predictable "inclusionist" counter-reaction), if we ever get a specific notability guideline (and that's far from sure, as we have even have people violently opposing any such guideline), it will either contain only the most obvious guidance such as: "The relations between two countries that most people have never heard of, which have no diplomatic relations, no trade, no wars, and lie at opposite ends of the world are normally not notable. The relations between two countries that have a long history of significant trade and several wars, or which have had a book published on their relations, are notable." In which case it is completely irrelevant to this AfD. Or it will be the result of a compromise that tries to draw general principles from the outcomes of dozens of AfDs. Neither side will like such a guideline, but at least it will prevent the fighting.
  
  In the first case it makes no sense to wait because the guideline will be irrelevant. In the second case waiting for the guideline will either unfairly change what the guideline says (because "no consensus/wait for guideline" is interpreted as "keep") or restrict what it can talk about (because "no consensus/wait for guideline" is interpreted as "no idea what we should do in this case"). --Hans Adler (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Sorry, but all I get out of the arguments is that some of the voters for deletion hate all X-Y relations articles, while Mr. Adler explains above that he is undertaking some kind of effort to revise policy. In either case there is some kind of agenda present so it seems WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:JDLI would apply. Furthermore, WP:Deadline, so there is no need to rush to delete. -moritheil^Talk 04:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am revising policy? Per WP:POLICY#Evaluating the consensus, new guidelines are not normally allowed to contradict existing policies or guidelines. I don't "hate all X-Y relations articles", I evaluate them all per the general notability guideline (in practice none of them was justified per WP:Summary style yet, which would be the alternative justification for existence). Just because the 400 articles on various values of X and Y are highly notable doesn't mean all (or most) of the 20,000 articles on X–Y are notable. See User:Hans Adler/Relations between Helmut Kohl and Kurt Tucholsky for a demonstration of where that type of argument could lead us. You haven't given a single reasonable argument for keeping the article. You are merely making assumptions about other editors' motivations, calling policy based deletion !votes (hint: the first two sentences in my !vote) "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT", and claiming that lack of notability can be healed through editing or waiting (the latter is theoretically possible but very unlikely in this case: the two countries don't even have mutual embassies; also see WP:CRYSTAL). If you don't add any reasoning that actually has to do with the article I predict that your !vote will be disregarded by the closer. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 (blatant ad) and WP:CSD#A7 (person with no assertion of notability). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don McLeman

Article reads like a resume for what seems to be a non-notable person. Could not find relevant 3rd party sources or any information on Google News. Does not meet WP:BIO. JogCon (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Very Christmas Story

A film whose director is non notable: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dariusz Zawiślak. Cross-wiki spam based on primary sources (Original research) (Also created by MARTHA WARTA 2000 (talk · contribs)). Not notable per WP:NF. AntiCross (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —AntiCross (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —AntiCross (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Very little info in article other than cast listing because references aren't available. Only 23 votes on IMDB, I know this is not a measure but if it were a high vote count it might indicate that I was overlooking something. Drawn Some (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDB seems to be primarily English-speaking, though. Its suitability for assessing the notability of an untranslated foreign-language film is highly suspect. Can we find some other way of showing it is notable/non-notable? Perhaps a Polish IMDB equivalent? -Moritheil (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and find a Polish-reading wikipedian to translate those sources and these. Let's try to see if we can make this Polish film suitable for English wikipedia per WP:CSB. The director may be have suitable notability found here with some work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman

(talk) 00:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People, this was released in an English version in English-speaking countries. The popularity is up 95% on IMDB this week no doubt because people are checking it for this discussion. ZERO assertion of notability, importance, significance, etc. On what basis are you saying that it should be kept? Drawn Some (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, I can find no evidence that it was released in the US, or in English. Before I asked for input from a Polish laguage reading wikipedian, I had done a deep search. To what English speaking countries do yoy refer? If you can provide a link, it may help in finding further English sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm a Polish-reading Wikipedian, such as Michael has been looking for. Most of the sources found by the Google News search linked above are simply listings of where the film is being shown, but this article in Gazeta Wyborcza is about the production of the film, this one is about film's music and its composer and this interview with the screenwriter and lead actor focuses on this film. Not much, but I think that three articles in Poland's equivalent of The New York Times is enough for notability. There's also a section in this publication but I'm not sure if that really counts towards notability - it looks more like a print equivalent of IMDb. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Phil. I knew somebody in these pages must be able to read Polish. Might you be so inclined as to add the sources? And perhaps that Polish film base for WP:V? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per author's request. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 A.M. (Eminem Song

This is a recently created copy of 3 A.M. (Eminem Song), without the closing parenthesis. I am tempted to CSD it, but in order to be more formal, I'm bringing it here. Shadowjams (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, go ahead delete this one, this isn't the original one. Toonamiguy (talk) Original is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_A.M._(song), thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toonamiguy (talk • contribs) 06:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here worth keeping that isn't already in 3AM (which appears to be not yet notable). Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G7 Author requested deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–Philippines relations

Another combination of non-notable embassies in Hungary and The Philippines. I'm Filipino and there are no ambassadors. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - random pairing; mere existence of relations does not demonstrate notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a google news search couldn't find anything meaningful in terms of relations or agreements. LibStar (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable or indeed conceivable here. Dahn (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The google news searches I've tried [5] and [6] don't turn up anything. I did note a 1976 trade agreement and a 2000 memorandum of understanding, but nothing that would show a significant bilateral relationship. Mandsford (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of notability reasons mentioned above. --seav (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Maple_Ridge-Mission#Electoral_history_post_2008. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Dalton

The subject of this article has apparently never won office; he appears not to meet the notability guidelines for politicians. This article does not give evidence of significant coverage of Mr. Dalton in reliable third-party sources. —Bkell (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maple_Ridge-Mission#Electoral_history_post_2008 (or Burnaby-New_Westminster#Election_results, but prefer the former as its more recent); inadequately notable thus far. JJL (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not to be confused with the porn star Mark Dalton. Drawn Some (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the constituency. If he gains office, obviously he would then become notable. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin close. Speedy keep per WP:Speedy keep, nom withdrawn, no other "Delete" !votes.. ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George M. Zinkhan

This article is about a person currently in the news as the wanted suspect in a triple murder yesterday. As I think this is the only reason an article exists about him (despite his academic achievements) it is squarely in the realm of WP:BLP1E. More appropriate would be an article on the event itself, but the stub that existed has been redirected to this article. Note that a previous version at George Zinkhan was speedily deleted under the G10 criterion yesterday. Ladyof Shalott 01:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 01:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 01:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Haven't had time to look at this yet, I just wanted to let everyone know this article was recently discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#George_Zinkhan. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep -- a search on google scholar (here) makes it clear his work is widely cited. The murder thingie is obviously the reason the article has been created now, but there would have been sufficient notability previously for an article on him, so there is sufficient notability now. Of course it should be re-written so that the lead is not a breathless update of the search/investigation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Of course it should be re-written so that the lead is not a breathless update of the search/investigation." Done. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept, though. cab (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable quite apart from his recent activities: editor in chief of several well known periodicals; named full professor at two universities, multiple books. Article needs to be carefully watched, of course. The G10 was in my opinion an error, but I have notified the admin who deleted, as should have been done by the nom. DGG (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for notifying the deleting admin. It did not occur to me to do so. Ladyof Shalott 03:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was the admin who deleted under G10 yesterday. The version of the article which I speedily deleted contained no references at all and did not assert the level of notability required for either WP:PROF or WP:N/CA, as I noted on WP:BLPN at the time that I deleted. I agree that there is the possibility that an article is possible for this person, and the one that is the subject of this AFD is much closer. In my own opinion, there is undue weight being given to the crime he is alleged to have committed, while the real reasons he is notable, as mentioned above by DGG, are given somewhat short shrift. Even should the subject be convicted of the reported crime, his prior activity is really what makes him notable; sad to say, this type of crime is remarkably commonplace and shouldn't be considered noteworthy in itself. Risker (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Addition: I would have no objection to the current article being moved over the redirect so that it meets our standard naming conventions, but will refrain from doing so myself as I don't want to mess up the AfD. Risker (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG (talk · contribs). Too soon to tell if this person will continue to be notable in the future, but for now I believe this person will continue to a be a notable person. Could use some additions on his academic background though Calebrw (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I stumbled on this article yesterday, it contained almost exclusively information about the alleged crime. I spend some time digging up stuff about his career (not too difficult, given his detailed CV on the university website). I was surprised myself to see how easily Zinkhan passes the bar for several of the notability criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. I also redirected several other articles to this one (even though I almost got into an edit war with someone who thought all three victims "deserved" their own articles; thanks for your help there Ukexpat :-). I agree with DGG that the article needs to be monitored and the current version, giving less emphasis to the alleged crime (even if at some point the crime would be proven and there would be a conviction). Risker is right that it is the other stuff that makes Zinkhan notable, not the alleged crime which is all too common. One question to Risker (just for my education), how does the current article not meet our naming conventions? --Crusio (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crusio, our naming convention would have it at "George Zinkhan" instead of "George M. Zinkhan". I believe the second (current) article was created shortly after I had deleted the first one, and the original name redirected to this article later than that. Risker (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks! --Crusio (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussions above.--Judo112 (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is definitely notable as an academic. The recent crime for which he is accused is just additional content. Yaf (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF. ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In light of all the well-reasoned comments above, I withdraw my nomination. Ladyof Shalott 15:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Brainard

Non-notable artist, no sources —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find anything but a couple event listings. Gigs (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable musician. Iowateen (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His name is mentioned in this NY Times article but I cannot find any coverage about hime. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nominator withdraws nomination On consideration of the evidence provided. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libya–Vanuatu relations

another random combination. "Vanuatu condemned the bombing of Libya" is hardly a reason for notable relations. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep You have to be f'ing kidding me? Have a read of this source for crying out loud - it clearly demonstrates notability. In fact I placed it on the talk page Talk:Libya–Vanuatu_relations 3 days ago. Are the people nominating these articles actually looking for sources of information, or are they just being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive? This is getting beyond a joke, and perhaps ~~bans~~ restrictions on certain editors (i.e. LibStar) nominating such articles should be given, because this one just proves there is too much disruption going on. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a ban is not assuming good faith. I have also supported the keeping of certain articles as well and have created some new bilateral relations articles so I'm not nominating most of them. each article passes through the AfD process. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we supposed to assume good faith with ridiculous nominations such as this? Did you even put Libya Vanuatu into a search engine before nominating? If you did, you would have gotten that source, in addition to [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] - they are all from the first 3 pages of search results of Google Web, Books and Scholar. And you are claiming not-notable? The proof is in the pudding, that you didn't do an ounce of research before bringing this to AfD, and it is disruptive. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone makes mistakes once in a while - can we not jump on each other like this? LibStar is doing a good job; assume good faith, be civil, and don't call for his head. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Libstar--Moloch09 (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Libstar actually nominated this for deletion. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extremly strong keep - With this amount of refrences someone could easily make this into a GA or even FA with hard work. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Lazzara

There is no referenced independent and notable source that indicates that the subject of this article, a living person, satisfies Wikipedia notability criteria. The subject has never been the nominee or recipient of any "notable award or honor" and there is no indication of any "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". The only independent opinion from a notable source that this nominator could find is from Opera News, which described Lazzara as "somewhat feeble-sounding". (Note that this article has previously been deleted per CSD g12 — unambiguous copyright infringement — and many images uploaded by a significant editor have been removed per {{copyvio}}. The complete record of the previous article might help with determination of whether this article should be deleted.) —Danorton (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per above. —Danorton (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I note that the article creator, Voceditenore (talk · contribs), reports that he will be absent from Wikipedia until April 23. —Danorton (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not familiar with the notability guidelines at en-wp but I want to add some points:

There is one record for Marco Lazzara at the German Music Archive.
I see a significant number of published CDs at amazon.com where he participated.
He is mentioned once in the New York Times: [..] and Marco Lazzara, a male alto with a dark, rich tone.
RAI has portrayed him as a unique interpret of baroque music and of the 18th century who applied some of these techniques to romantic and contemporary music: Precocemente diplomato in Pianoforte, Organo, Clavicembalo e Canto, Lazzara ha debuttato nel 1989 suscitando subito l'interesse della critica, non solo per la particolarità del suo registro vocale ma anche per la sua forte personalità musicale; a differenza di molti colleghi, legati pressoché esclusivamente ai repertori barocchi e settecenteschi, Lazzara ha applicato la sua musicalissima concezione della vocalità a repertori assai diversi, cimentandosi - unico forse nel suo genere - anche in quelli romantici e in quelli contemporanei (al quale ultimo si ascrivono molte prime esecuzioni).

All this adds to some notability. The main problem with that article, in my opinion, seems to be that Marco Lazzara wrote it himself without the distance of someone else in the style of a personal web page and without any Wikipedia experience (as he never edited any other articles). --AFBorchert (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (Writing from a hotel) Just to clarify, I didn't technically create the article. I re-wrote it and redirected Marco lazzara (created by User:Marcolazzara2)[37]. In my view, he passes the criteria for notability of musicians as applied to opera singers. He has sung leading roles in leading opera houses, including several world and Italian premieres and has an extensive discography. The fact that it was created and extensively edited by its subject, shouldn't influence the decision to keep it. I would ask that this AfD please not be closed until I return to my home computer and can edit the article as necessary. -Voceditenore (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I support the request for deferral submitted by Voceditenore (talk · contribs) and further request that no decision be made before April 30. —Danorton (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable even if the article is less than ideal. --Klein zach 22:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have now completely re-written this article and added extensive inline citations, something I don't do unless I think an article is worth saving. As can be seen, apart from his performances in several world premieres, he was the subject of an hour-long programme on RAI Radio 5. See also the many other broadcasts he has appeared in [38]. He also has an extensive discography which includes several world premiere recordings. The reference to the Opera '97. Annuario dell'opera lirica in Italia includes excerpts from multiple reviews of his Orfeo. I have to say, that I also found it rather unhelpful for an editor to have summarily removed all the previous sources, which although not attached to inline citations, had backed up his notability and the performances claimed in the original article and provided a starting point for expanding and improving the referencing.[39]. Obviously, a singer appears non-notable, if the only source listed in the article is his own website. The subject recently attempted to redress this by re-adding the references and adding a (badly formatted) discography, but this too was summarily reverted as "vandalism".[40] It is definitely a conflict of interest but not vandalism. I repeat, the article was undoubtedly originally created by the subject as an autobiography (and I sincerely hope he refrains in future from editing this article), but that has no bearing on whether or not he is notable, or whether an article should be deleted. For those of you unfamiliar with the criteria for notability of musicians, and particularly classical musicians, please see the following past AFD discussions. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diletta Rizzo Marin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvia O'Brien (soprano), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Adlam. Voceditenore (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep updated article shows notability in discography alone--Moloch09 (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Voceditenore, for this excellent work. I think this is best outcome of this DR we can have thought of as the notability is now proven and the article is written from scratch in conformance to WP:NPOV. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability established to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 05:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luis German Cajiga

Not a recognizable person to have an article on Wikipedia BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 00:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you determine that this is not a recognizable person? What, in your estimation, would be considered recognizable? A man such as Luis German Cajiga has not only made great strides as an artist, but he has inspired many artists. He has plastered the Puerto Rican culture onto his paintings. Your comment that he is not a recognizable person is an insult to many. TRJDupont (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not demonstrate notability as require by the WP:Notability guidelines. The main editor is producing a series of fairly spammy articles with the self-proclaimed aim of bringing PR artists to a wider audience. The tone of the response above is typical with unsourced promotional claims jimfbleak (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be spam for a gallery. No non-trivial references. Note that what appear to be references are not what constitute reliable resources and that the article is basically unreferenced, especially the more important aspects. Drawn Some (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~I'm neutral on this one, but~~ I felt this source might be helpful in this discussion, even though it won't be good for proving notability unless it is restored... There is a Google cache up of a bio that was on the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration website. See: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:3YgmIdcsIp0J:www.prfaa.com/aboutpr.asp%3Fid%3D98+Luis+German+Cajiga&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the State University of New York where his art is exhibited in a permanent collection the subject " was arguably the most influential of the artists working in the silkscreen medium in Puerto Rico." 1 (note the citation to a book). His art is part of the permanent collection of several museums of Puerto Rico including the Museum of Art of Puerto Rico, 2 and house-museum of the first elected governor of Puerto Rico, 3. He is the subject of study in a course in the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, "Outstanding artist of the fifties are....Luis G. Cajigas" and the University of Puerto Rico 4. In this case, more online sources would help but Art in Puerto Rico is a neglected topic by popular media. --J^mundo 03:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: After a careful review of the sources Jmundo has provided, along with an independent check of Google, GScholar, Amazon, and Yahoo, I consider notability to be VERY narrowly established by the sources availible, but this is more a judgment call than a clear-cut case of established notability. While I am concerned that the article may be asserting more importance than maybe is merited, the subject does appear notable, if only slightly over the line. As such, I weakly support keeping the article, but would hope for significant changes/improvements, and an attempt to find more sources in print media. Jo7hs2 (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He is known outside Puerto Rico, with a scattering of press coverage, e.g. designed a poster for Hispanic Heritage Month in NY in 1997[41], and a mural for Heineken in 2002.[42] Fences and windows (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good find! That Heineken source is very helpful, as it asserts he is an "internationally acclaimed" artist. In my mind that certainly strengthens my support to the very strongest form of "weak keep" possible without a solid keep. It isn't a slam-dumk, however as it asserts that of several artists at once, and could be mere puffing. Stronger sources would certainly still be helpful in proving notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Alexf^(talk) 16:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Shearman

Would not appear to meet the WP:ATHLETE notability guidelines. Note that the Bathurst 24 hour race is not the same as the much more famous Bathurst 1000 race, and the article is slightly misleading as Shearman was only one driver on the team that came third - he did not do so all by himself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hopeless article, even for a stub, but if reliable sources can be found then this does sound like he passes WP:ATHLETE. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:BIO generally Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to say that the Bathurst 24 Hour was not a fully professional competition at the top level of the sport? If not then keep as satisfying WP:ATHLETE. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the race was only run twice before being cancelled due to the collapse of the organising body. While there were some professional drivers involved, many of the entrants were weekend drivers from local racing competitions. I don't believe that you could qualify it as a "fully professional" competition for these reasons. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why isn't this speedied? Doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE, and there are two sentences saying who this guy is. Should be nuked on {{db-nocontent}} or {{db-nocontext}}. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete common sense tells you this guy is not notable just from reading the article. Drawn Some (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Save for the one 3rd place finish (which I wasn't able to verify) this is textbook A7. Tagged. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGAST

Procedural nom. This was {{prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree; the prod was contested, but someone else then re-added it. As the prod was contested – and the article has been live for five years prior to deletion – I've undeleted it to set up a procedural discussion. Procedural nom so I abstain. – iride scent 22:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - described as "popular" at Adventuregamers, but that's all I've got. As such, not enough information to support an indivudual article, but should be mentioned in a general article on adventure game creators (I don't think we have one yet, so it might be an idea. History section can start with The Quill and go from there - otherwise game engine is the nearest.) Marasmusine (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think/hope that sources can be found. At the time this was written requirements for sources etc. were considerably more lax. Given the 'non-RS' hits I think it's likely that RS could be dug up; early days of the net, so not suprising they might not be online. I hope some old magazines etc. might help verify and assert notablilty. Chzz ► 07:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd have to agree here with Marasmusine that there's not many sources out there to be had. From my little bit of research, it would appear to me that although it generated a fair amount of buzz in the homebrew game development community, it didn't get a whole lot of attention outside of that. Not to mention that the project seems to have gone unmaintained for several years now, and their forums aren't set up (the article even says this). I just don't think that this project ever gained enough notability. Matt (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There's now a couple of references, though admitedly not of the highest quality. It would be a shame to loose such a venerable article, perhaps given time other sources will turn up? FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Abramson

Procedural nom. This was {{prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree; as this is a potentially noteworthy figure and Oo7565's prod reason ("unreferenced, no sources on the internet") appears to have missed the ten different references in the article, I've undeleted it to set up a procedural discussion. Procedural nom so I abstain. – iride scent 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Given that the original reason for nomination was based on an incorrect assumption, I see no reason to continue this discussion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No valid reason for deletion given. --J^mundo 03:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs a bit of cleanup, but the prodder broke the limits of my good faith assumptions so I see no valid reason to delete. Them From Space 06:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gravelle

Procedural nom. This was {{prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree; as this appears to be an article on someone who would be notable if references can verify it, I've undeleted it to set up a procedural discussion. Procedural nom so I abstain. – iride scent 21:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In a possible conflict of interest, the article was created by user "Al Gravelle." If the author was in fact the subject of the article, one would expect that he would have been able to add some references from his newspaper/trade journal clipping file. Absent references, appears to fail WP:BIO. Found nothing at Google News Archive or Google Books. Perhaps Variety or a broadcasting journal would have something.Edison (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Al Gravelle has clearly done a lot of voiceover and voice acting work, I can't find any news sources or books that discuss him or his work, and the only websites are either professional voice sites, or listings of roles in passing. Fences and windows (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absorbing the Disarray

Procedural nom. This was {{prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree; as this appears to be an verifiable studio album by a notable band, I've undeleted it to set up a procedural discussion. Procedural nom so I abstain. – iride scent 21:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least this one has a review of the album from online "Decibel" magazine. Is that considered a reliable source? If so then the article is halfway to "multiple reliable sources." Has the album been on the charts or won an award. or in some way satisfied WP:MUSIC? Edison (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't have the time right now, but Decibel is a commercially-published print magazine, so certainly a reliable source. I'd be very surprised if further print sources couldn't be found for what is clearly a fairly notable band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep album by notable band with a reference. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:32, 27 April 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 16:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accademia Italiana Thailand

Procedural nom. This was {{prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree; as this appears to be an verifiable offshoot of a notable institution, I've undeleted it to set up a procedural discussion. Procedural nom so I abstain. – iride scent 21:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep College-level fashion design school in Thailand. Strangely, although it is affiliated with an Italian College, BA degrees are awarded from a college in Wales. Edison (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - colleges that offer fully accredited degrees are notable. TerriersFan (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep-- No valid reason for deletion given. --J^mundo 03:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Farghana Institute

Procedural nom. This was {{prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree. A look at the organisation's website suggests to me that this is potentially a notable institution, so I've undeleted and set up a procedural AFD discussion. Procedural nom, so I abstain. – iride scent 21:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one reference is their website. They teach "Islamic courses for youths," apparently in Britain, and seem to have at least three teachers, but the age range or number of students enrolled is not easy to find, nor is any accreditation. They also have political activities, which might have gotten some press, but nothing shows up at Google News archive. Appears to fail the guidelines for general notability WP:N and for organizations WP:ORG unless someone can find reliable and independent sources. Foreign language reliable sources would also be useful. Edison (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent organization Minhaj-ul-Quran as is not a notable organization at that level. Drawn Some (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minhaj-ul-Quran. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we include only information in reliable, independent sources, we have... nothing. There is no material to merge, other than mentioning the name of the institute with a link to the website. Fences and windows (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Teresi

Non-notable author; attempting to piggyback on the fact that he ghostwrote or co-wrote a book with a notable scientist. Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Threes books are listed, seems notable enough to me.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

another comment

Hopefully this is the correct page for discussion on this matter. I started this article and I assumed that it had already been deleted. However, since it has not been deleted - my main reason for starting the article was because he co-authored The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? with Leon Lederman, a nobel prize winner (see wikipedia page for date of nobel prize and for what).

Also he has been involved with co-authoring "Laser: Light of a Million Uses" which is about the laser revolution, so to speak, and how it is used in our life. Here is a quoted summary "From check-out counter scanners to compact disc recordings to fiber optical systems, lasers have become an integral part of modern society. LASER tells the fascinating story--past, present, and future--of these remarkable beams of light and how they are transforming our daily lives. A new preface brings the text up to date on the latest laser technology. 44 illustrations.
Engrossing story -- past, present, and future -- of tools that use light instead to perform a host of functions -- from providing superb fidelity on CDs and conveniences at the check-out counter to transforming surgical processes and improving telephone service and TV reception. "A fascinating, comprehensive book for the layman. Richly, readably thorough." -- "Wall Street Journal." ^[1]

I wondered , if Leon Lederman thought enough of Teresi to include him on the cover of the book with the words "with Dick Teresi" to imply that he was some sort of co-author to such a great book; a book that gives an incredible view of paticle physics, then he might be an interesting guy. But, at this time I don't have a lot of information about Teresi and it would take time to put it together.

I am curious where did you come with Teresi as a the ghost writer for this book? If that is true then possibly his contribution is minimal. It appears that he does not have a PhD. in physics like Dr. Lederman.Ti-30X (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Apparently to see the link the reference refers to you will have to go to the edit function of this page. Ti-30X (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teresi and his wife were both editors at OMNI magazine. His wife has a stub at Wikipedia. Ti-30X (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--a quick Google News search easily turns up plenty of references that establish notability. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry--I intended to have included the link to that search; here it is. Now, if some kind soul could, you know, rewrite the entire article... Drmies (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per drmies Chzz ► 07:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not quite sure if his days as an editor for OMNI works for him or against him. Seems notable enough to me. TStein (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nette Framework

A nonnotable piece of software Timurite (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, lacks 3rd party references. Dialectric (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 07:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I remember a good quarrel with some wiki admin (they are mostly often just power hungry gawks) over the Nette Framework. He must have deleted the discussion. What a dipshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.156.185 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formidable for TYPO3

A nonnotabloe piece of open-source software Timurite (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails the GNG. ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article should be removed. The team behind this software is working hard to produce a robust and free solution for rapid php-dev in a TYPO3 environment. In what way should the article be updated not to be considered a AfD ? Please tell me. Schneiderjerome 10:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how hard people are working on it, or how important it is to them - if it doesn't satisfy the notability criteria it can be deleted. There need to be enough references from reliable, third-party sources to assert that it's worthy of an article. Otherwise it could just be a school weekend project for all the verifiability. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's stated here WP:FAILN that For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. Also, that there's a procedure to follow before honnestly judjing an article, notably to ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources. Being the article's creator, I can assure you that nobody ever asked me to cite sources before considering deletion (which btw is to be considered as a final resort). I personnaly feel that the deletion is not fair in that case; furthermore, if you simply search for 'formidable TYPO3' in Google, you'll see that many third-party sources are actually using and talking about the Formidable project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schneiderjerome (talk • contribs) 10:03, April 24, 2009

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, per general notability guidelines. I can't see significant coverage in a reliable source. Chzz ► 07:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another "application development framework" related to a "content management system". In other words, this would be of interest chiefly to programmers or web designers, and is unlikely to receive much notice in edited general interest publications. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ihcoyc. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 15:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Phoenix Basketball

Does not meet general notability requirements (no verifiable third party sources) Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 14:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I could not actually figure out what this article was about well enough to prove or disprove notability. (It's a team, a collection of teams or a type of basketball?) ~Excesses~ (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's supposed to be about the basketball teams at Elon University, although the first two paragraphs of the article are about the school's athletics program in general. Elon's basketball teams are in Division 1, and there's no shortage of independent coverage available [43], so there is something worthwhile here. The article needs some polishing, and perhaps a more clearly defined scope, but I'd be willing to give the editor a little time to work on it. Zagalejo^^^ 18:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds fair to me. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 00:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - I think the article needs some cleanup, but based on the information that is available, it merits being kept. Mandermagic (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Elon Phoenix men's basketball to follow standard college basketball naming conventions. matt91486 (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think this has been open long enough (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Rockets

I closed the last AFD for this article as delete, but it has come to my attention that two or more of the participants were sockpuppets (see [44]). I am therefore relisting it, with no opinion on whether it should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changed !vote to a keeper in light of another source that Unionsoap found [45]. That, along with the Allmusic one is enough to pass WP:MUSIC#C1. Update: change vote back to keep in light of the sources Gigs dug up. Nice one. Delete, can only find one mention (the Allmusic one), not enough to pass WP:Music Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above linked review is a mirror of an allmusic review. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holy double-up Duffman, you're right. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A borderline case. [46] [47] I found a little more coverage though. Gigs (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedball (South Euclid)

Contested PROD. Non-notable local variation of a game. Unreferenced. Radiant chains (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. Mintrick (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I dont know how this works but I have to say that there is no reason to delete this thread as it is totally true and accurate. Additionally it is not a non notalable local variation of a game, it was a totally new game still being played today. It is an example of today's youth getting together and learning how to organize themselves, govern themselves, and resolve conflict with absolutely no adult influence. LONG LIVE SOUTH EUCLID SPEEDBALL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.183.164 (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This game is very different than other Speedball games out there. As author of this article, I feel very strongly about this. Thousands of students in the Northeastern Ohio area know about this game and it still continues to be played years after the founders have left for college and have not been able to keep the tradition alive. It is regional, but so are all of the wikis for local television channels, city pages (including south euclid and lyndhurst), awful morning radio programs, and even third rate, cable access local celebrities. This is much more relevant and worthy of a wiki than numerous others. Don't delete this; it is worthy of the free encyclopedia. ABernhard07 —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Even if the game does exist as described, I've been unable to located any reference in reliable, third-party sources. Radiant chains (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of adherance to WP:N guidelines, and more importantly, complete adherance to WP:NFT guidelines. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion as no coverage in reliable sources can be found. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GolemLabs

This article sounds like it was written as an advertisement. It cites one reference, which is the company's homepage. Apparently, GolemLabs hasn't even produced a game since 2004, and have only produced two games since the inception of the company in 2000. GolemLabs is clearly not notable and its article should be deleted. Worldruler20 (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I just noticed that the company's homepage hasn't been updated since 2007, including the copyright notice at the bottom. [48] Worldruler20 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MLauba (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising for a seemingly-inactive company. The ad was an epic failure. Alexius08 (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good information about the developers of a well known game SuperPower 2. Can be improved if necessary but I find it useful. Peer-LAN (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article largely described forum-based speculation and fan opinion, which I have removed per WP:V along with the spammy content. Still, the company does not seem to have attracted any attention from the gaming press (no Google News hits; only press releases and token directory entries on IGN, GameSpy etc) and our coverage should reflect that. Marasmusine (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V due to lack of independent coverage - only self-written company profiles to be found. MLauba (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useful is not a reason to keep. Lacks independent coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here in indicate any verifiability, though I'd question (at least in regard to the current version) whether or not it's written as an advertisement. MuZemike 20:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kemar Jarrett

Without references, this is about as blatant a WP:BLP violation as it's possible to get. Even if it is referenced, I'd question whether there is anything notable about this particular case. – iride scent 22:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, it is referenced adequately, to articles in the leading national newspaper. They were not formatted properly, so they didnt display in a references section (I fixed that). Since the last information in the article is 2004, there's probably more. DGG (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike the BLP issue in that case – but I'd still question whether he warrants an article. Sadly, the world has a lot of murderers. However, I don't know how major a case this was in Jamaica and am certainly prepared to be persuaded otherwise. – iride scent 23:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a notable criminal, top of a most wanted list is a pretty exclusive club. Gigs (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm inclined to agree with Gigs here. Enough sources have been included to solve the egregious WP:BLP problems originally noted; and being number one on a country's most-wanted list is one of the better indicators of notability I can think of. ~ mazca ^t|c 10:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, #1 on the most wanted list is pretty big. The sources issue can be fixed by, say, adding sources?--Unionhawk ^Talk 13:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew K

nn DJ and record producer Oo7565 (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Unsourced; does not assert notability. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy Procedural Keep per WP:AFTER as the now improved article asserts notability, is sourced, and Andrew K recieves coverage diff AND in reliable sources diff. Further, the nom has been repeatedly warned for such nominations diff. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:NMG to me. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural delete per, uhm, no reliable independent sources that establish notability. Fails BIO, MUSIC.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Substantial coverage in reliabel independent sources. The New York Times doesn't cover DJs, but the sources provided establish he's notable within the business. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per ChildofMidnight and ^{MICHAEL Q.}--Moloch09 (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Notability and sourcing are presented however I would be more inspired if more sources were on the article. Finding reliable sourcing for DJ's seems to be getting harder as they really don't need traditional media to be very sucessful so chart results, sales figures and concert listings ned to also be added in - all of which can be a challenge. For those interested I suggest search strings with his name and top titles to see if that unearths more. -- Banjeboi 22:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable per policy. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:27, 30 April 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 16:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The subject does not meet guidelines for inclusion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Dark Battle Arena

No independent reliable sources allowing for a neutral and verifiable article. Google News and Google Search turn up nothing useful. MLauba (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MLauba (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under criteria A7 (web-based content with no indication of importance) Marasmusine (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to have been created as part of a school assignment, and the writer is aware it probably doesn't pass muster: see [49]. Nifboy (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no secondary sources available to establish notability or verifiability, and therefore consists of practically entirely original research. NikBurg (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamgirl (Tay Dizm song)

Non-notable single that only appeared on the Bubbling Under chart (the chart which shows songs that are close to appearing on the actual chart). Fails WP:NSONGS. I'm including another song by the same artist that scraped the bottom of the chart but is "unlikely ever to grow beyond stub" status (per WP:NSONGS). Redirects of both articles have been reverted. TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Both show no notability, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Nothing to merge or redirect really, as both songs barely charted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ente Mamattikkuttiyammakku

Very short article on non notable subject. One external reference which seems to have been largely copied or paraphrased into the article- possible copyvio? HJ Mitchell (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge – to Shalini Kumar as the two go hand in hand. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 12:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per [50] and [51]. Also chek alternate spellings, as mis-translations into English often give numerous results that are searchable. No nee to delete when it can be properly sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was a 1983 hit Malayalam movie. I have added a couple of sources. Salih (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gibsonanimeshin

Subject is not notable. Did a search on Ghits and found nothing regarding Gibsonanimeshin or its creators that was relevant (or existent to the topic JogCon (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best. Edward321 (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Apprentice (U.S. season 5). No consensus to delete. Redirecting per WP:BLP with no prejudice against a speedy renomination if the redirect is reverted without the article being sourced. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jose "Pepi" Diaz

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jose "Pepi" Diaz

Person fails notability that he did not won The Apprentice 5. He does not meets BLP1E. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geetham (film)

Very short, non notable article providing little or no context. Completely lacking in references. HJ Mitchell (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - IMDB entry, which is the one external link on that article, suggests the lack of notability. The director and lead actor/actress seem to have been in a lot of films which suggests possible notability to Malayalans, but this isn't established in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excesses (talk • contribs) 14:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per WP:AFTER. Not being properly sourced is no reason to delte if that problem can be so easily addressed: [52], [53], and [54]. This stuff was not at all difficult to find. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The BFI source looks good. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Indian films don't get as much English language coverage as American/European ones (a vast majority of Indian films are not in English). Given the prolific resumes of the director and some actors, I will assume many Malayalam language sources exist. --Oakshade (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know nothing about the subject, but the film appears to have several notable people involved, and therefore a high-profile production. Strongly suspect that someone with knowledge of the language/film culture would be able to source and improve the article. Dekkappai (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Mills

Non-notable television actor and unsourced BLP article. Acting roles include only bit parts as far as I can tell. Appears to fail the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this guy is the same Jason Mills (the two articles have no overlapping material so its hard to tell) then he might be notable. If what's in this article is his entire resume than he would fail WP:N. Them From Space 06:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the trivia section which debunks the connection. Delete. Them From Space 06:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with ThemFromSpace. All I could find is that when he was 10 yeras old, he appeared in a student film as the child being babysat. He seems to have vanished after that. If he's notable for anything, it is sure not going to be that one film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete.(EC) This is one of the cases where Wikipedia has failed. This article has consisted primarily of false, or completely unverifiable (what difference does it make) information that has been unchallenged for two years. Every single detail about him seems to have been vandalized in one way or another without anyone noticing. I could restore one of the diffs that looks plausible, but I don't really see the point. All we know is that he probably made an appearance in Silent Number, and is possibly Australian, which of course fails WP:ENTERTAINER. decltype (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lives of workers during the industrial revolution

This article is very unencyclopedic, and there are many fragments. Logan | Talk 20:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is awful, but I don't see what's unencyclopedic about the topic (which has been the subject of large numbers of books [for instance The Making of the English Working Class], academic papers, TV shows, museums, etc) and the nomination doesn't identify any guidelines which it breaches. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an arbitrary sub-topic of industrial revolution. Seems like the main article has the subject covered, and is better written and better sourced. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has no online references and more to the point the article industrial revolution covers the same information in great and well referenced detail. This should be deleted and should instead be a redirect ot the main article which really is better written and sourced. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a POV fork, or something close to one. When I start thinking about all that would need to be done to salvage it, it quickly adds up to almost entirely starting over. Gigs (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything worth keeping into the main Industrial Rev article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dupe of Industrial Revolution. There is nothing worth salvaging that I can see, so it is probably best to just can it. Tavix | Talk 11:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing worth merging and not a plausible redirect. If we started a proper article , there would be better titles. DGG (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now this i hate this article as it stands is an unholy abortion that should be burned to the ground. However, the topic is eminently wikipedic (i won't say encyclopedic) given the low standards around here and the important social and political history this could encompass. However, I'm not inclined to fix it, and clearly none of the mugs around me are either (though maybe someone should pull one or two of the ARS people off the urgent saving project they're doing now to save the latest pokemon article). Failing that, this article as it stands should go. Pity.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many books and encylopedias about this topic. It is our explicit editing policy to build upon such a fragmentary start and so deletion is utterly inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless repetition of industrial revolution article. DreamGuy (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even really a POV fork, more of a style fork of Industrial Revolution (well written vs. poorly written). KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eaton Green

Without references, this is about as blatant a WP:BLP violation as it's possible to get (the sole reference is to Black Flag, which I'd venture isn't a reliable source). Even if it is referenced, I'd question whether there is anything notable about this particular case. – iride scent 22:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a reference to the Guardian, that took me all of 30 seconds to find in Google News Archive. from it's nature, there are clearly more. Probably will pass BLP as a major national story in the UK. DGG (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet wp:n Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} 06:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a friendly IP address now seems to have quietly added masses of reliable-source references to the article. Notability and verifiability no longer appear to be in question; the article is now quite well sourced. ~ mazca ^t|c 11:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep per Mazca. The source added by DGG wasn't enough to convince me (proof that something happened isn't necessarily proof that it warrants coverage) but the sources just added persuade me that this was a significant case. I still think the negative BLP statements sourced solely to Black Flag need to go, though. – iride scent 12:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worthless United

Declined speedy, don't think this passes WP:MUSIC. A Google News archive search comes up a few articles from Punknews.org, which is the only website appearing to have any non-trivial coverage of the band. The problem is that Punknews.org is all user-submitted - not sure how WP:RS this website is. Any thoughts? - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 04:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[55] allmusic bio. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 for these 3 rated album reviews; [56], [57], [58]. While the info on the band may be user supplied at Punknews, most of the album reviews are written by staff writers. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it wasn't speedily deleted under A7 (i assume), what makes you think that it could be deleted at AfD for the same reason?--Unionhawk ^Talk 13:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I couldn't find any more sources concentrating on the band, only asides, but what there is seems just enough to retain the article. Fences and windows (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion. No prejudice against a speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wired Desire

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. Was previously deleted at AfD but two of the three "Delete" votes were by sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. Therefore relisting. I am neutral. Black Kite 19:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography Tour

Non-notable tour, no sources, consists only of a setlist and tour dates. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 15:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find My Keys and We'll Drive Out! (album)

No indication of the notability of this article. No content besides a track listing and infoboxes. HJ Mitchell (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a lot of albums linked to for this group, I would guess that this RfD ultimately applies to all of them? Not sure if some sort of merge could be done to keep the tracklistings? ~Excesses~ (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing Double at the Triple Rock

Non-notable song that wasn't released as a single, with no sources to suggest notability. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being released as a single or charting isn't necessary perse. This song apparently gets its notability from the music video (one of the view the band ever did) depicting Jesus (potentially offensive) and briefly mentions why it wasn't shown on MTV (a feud with MTV). If it can be verified, I could be convinced it's notable. Did you try to find sources, before nominating? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I didn't find anything that would be considered non-trivial. The fact that the band made a music video for the song does not make it notable, nor does the fact that some people somewhere may have possibly found it offensive. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Almost all of the creative text in this article was duplicated from [59] or other official sources. Permission to use this text was not verified in spite of due notice and listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 April 20. Since the article has now been twice nominated at AfD with very little interest and since recreating it without the copied text would leave only an introductory sentence and a list, which would even further reduce any encyclopedic value, I have deleted it. There is no prejudice against creation of a clean version that verifies notability with proper reliable sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UTS Writers' Anthology

AfDs for this article:

last deletion discussion was barely a discussion. relisting for greater consensus for keep or delete. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 06:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sansbury

Declined prod. Musician of questionable notability and no third-party sources. Only refs in the article are from MySpace. Attempts to find additional notable coverage turned up a few Google news hits, but these were trivial and/or local. The only Google hits seemed to be self-created content (i.e. MySpace, Reverbnation, etc.). The article's also got a promotional feel to it, which doesn't help its case. Graymornings_(talk) 03:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PROD removed by creator without actually improving or explaining why they disagree with deletion. unable to find relevant independant links. Does feel a bit promotional and I question COI on the part of the creator. Turgan ^Talk 06:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 27 April 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 16:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage about him to establish notability. Search results turn up event listings. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability shown, sourced only by myspace. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

APTItude Closer

Non notable software package. Few ghits, unreferenced. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 18:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Alain Joye

A PHP developer, nonnotable by himself. Timurite (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Article written as a resume. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A fairly thorough search reveals nothing that establishes notability. decltype (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detali Zvuku festival

Minor music festival, no reliable sources cited, part of a walled garden related to the music label. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News and Google Books aren't particularly useful for this kind of thing. I found coverage on Tokfali, a fairly reputable site [60], and it's been mentioned on last.fm and other places. I have no doubt that someone with access to Ukranian sources can cite this article. The festival was an event over multiple years. I think it's clearly notable and if we want to improve it we need to seek out those with access to the sources. I've suggested merging the record label into the same article. Here's a source with an interview on it: [61].ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 18:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ChildOfMidnight, but the article needs to be improved significantly. Tim meh ! 19:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Hillard

Unreferenced BLP. Looking through the Imdb credits I find little of note, mainly minor production roles. A look for sources just gave me film production charts, nothing on her in particular. Wizardman 14:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability; listing in credits does not constitute significant coverage. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a run through various sources, I can't find anything that establishes any substantial notability. Icestorm815 • Talk 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. News archive search (all dates) fails to generate anything indicating notability, as does web search. Bongo matic 01:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nothing in the GNews archive search that would help to establish WP:N notability, and I also checked a library database for newspaper and magazine articles that discuss this person, but I found none. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Laser blurb http://www.infibeam.com/Books/info/Jeff-Hecht/Laser-Light-of-a-Million-Uses/0486401936.html

[1] Laser blurb http://www.infibeam.com/Books/info/Jeff-Hecht/Laser-Light-of-a-Million-Uses/0486401936.html

[1]