Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Falastine fee Qalby (talk | contribs) at 21:26, 7 June 2009 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krisztina Morvai). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 6 June 8 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Seems quite clear to me that this is notable. Probably shouldn't have been nominated. GedUK  11:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krisztina Morvai

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

I created the article but abandoned it as soon as I realized she was not notable (lack of sources). The article is now used a source of libel like this. Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RCS (talk · contribs) is the one who posted the antisemitism category. His only edits to the article is to label Krisztina as an antisemite. I don't think his vote carries weight because the only reason he wants the article is that he can continue to post libelous statements. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Falastine fee Qalby (talk · contribs) vote carries weight because the only reason he wants the article deleted is that Mrs. Morvai, like many outspoken antisemites, is also being very pro-Palestinian indeed ([3]).--RCS (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medal of the Academic Excellency

Medal of the Academic Excellency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Achiever award at a Mexican junior high school. I cannot possibly see this being notable. Punkmorten (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight of the Gods (film)

Twilight of the Gods (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails WP:NFF; the second film is still in production, and the director has merely expressed an interest in this third film. Endorsed prod was removed by an IP without comment. PC78 (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Wildgoose

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

Non-notable musician, does not appear to have a critically reviewed work or other popularity. G-hits indicate mainly self-promotion. MBisanz talk 20:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep . Listing in a historic building register is a good sign that there are appropriate sources that are not necessarily FUTON. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Building/Cincinnati Club (Cincinnati, Ohio)

AfDs for this article:
Phoenix Building/Cincinnati Club (Cincinnati, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Can't find any reliable sources for this; only source is to the main National Register website, fails WP:GNG. American Eagle (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The WP:NRHP has held consensus that if something is listed on the NRHP, it's notable. I agree, its harder to find info on this one, but we can usually dig up the nomination form which usually has *pages* of details. Or old newspaper articles, it just takes work. As for the nrhpbot, you'll see that it started in 2007 and then stopped, due to our concern about exactly what you raise. I believe we agreed to leave the articles that had been created, but to not let it create more stub articles. So, no need to delete this. dm (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't agree that anything listed on this registry is automatically notable, I will go along with it if that's consensus. I'm willing for this to be speedy closed, if advised. American Eagle (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do think that anything listed there is indeed notable, because to get it there at all, there will necessarily be reliable information available from good sources. BTW, the full nomination form, which ordinarily contains detailed references, for all the buildings and areas on the database are becoming available online--for the ones that are not, you can get them mailed. In addition, every 19th c. building in the urban US can be sourced to the decennial Sanford maps, and most all State Libraries have made some of the years for their state available on line. These may be primary sources, but they are utterly reliable for location, size, construction, and use. DGG (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the NRHP listing and DGGs argument. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:BLP1E. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Kirsch and Edward Anderton

Jocelyn Kirsch and Edward Anderton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:BLP1E and lack of other notable activities. MBisanz talk 20:52, 7 June 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) 00:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, at least I got to read the Rolling Stone article before this got deleted. Fences&Windows 22:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete . Unreferenced BLP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav Vats

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

Unreferenced BLP, possibly written by the subject, considering the tone. Notability not established. Fails WP:CREATIVE. لennavecia 20:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete , unreferenced BLP. The only arguments to keep are speculation and the supposition that there may be sources about his single film, both of which were already covered in delete arguments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore (American director)

John Moore (American director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BLP1E (If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.) A single award in a limited entry film festival does not necessarily merit notability. Trevor Marron (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Insufficient coverage could be found to back up the claims made in the article and comply with WP:N. ~ mazca t/c 17:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus (band)

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

Declined speedy (A7). The performance credits move this out of the speedy deletion zone, but the broad search term makes this less easy to prove notability or lack thereof. No opinion, just bringing the article here for discussion. Jamie☆S93 20:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus . This is a typical "The sources are sufficient" "No they aren't" disagreement of fact. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Conte

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

I'm not seeing Notability here from the usual means. Yes it has some ironic or otherwise unusual facts, but nothing inherently encyclopedic. MBisanz talk 20:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. Corsentino

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

Article with no sources about an artist. The two books listed (one of which is primarily his, the other he is one of 168 artists in it) from my search of Worldcat only show up in three libraries. Sources exist showing that the person exists, but not as far as I can tell ones that establish notability enough for a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep content. Looks like we agree to keep the content, any other decision is beyond the scope of this afd. Flowerparty☀ 02:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset Nuclear Power Plant

Somerset Nuclear Power Plant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable - a proposed nuclear power plant that was canceled a year later in 1975. I can find no reliable sources to say this is notable - google gives 0 results for "Somerset Nuclear Power Plant". Author declined PROD claiming that fact it was a proposed major project automatically makes it notable. I disagree - if it was controversial or significant in some way then maybe yes, but I find no sources to suggest this. Pontificalibus (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different Somerset Nuclear Power Plants. One proposed, and one active in England. So I am not sure how you found "no results" as I have found some citations for both (unless your google is censored). rkmlai (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My search for "Somerset Nuclear Plant" OR "Somerset Nuclear Power Plant" shows one single result: the very same article that is being considered for deletion. — Rankiri (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I would encourage editors to take this chance to expand on the start which has been made here. Given that we are looking at the 1970s, I would expect that there wouldn't be a lot on the internet, which tends to have more recent coverage. But books written during the 70s should cover major nuclear plant proposals such as this. And I have today ordered three books from the university library with a view to expanding this and related articles. Johnfos (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand per Johnfos rkmlai (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unfortunately—or fortunately, depending on one's perspective—Wikipedia doesn't run on unadulterated optimism and unrealistic expectations. Without any sources there can't be any expansion. The two references mentioned by the article provide insufficient notability for a standalone article, and a number of more extensive Google searches were only able to produce the following extract from the New York Times (with a later correction that changes the name of the company to NYSEG, from Con Edison) and the following newspaper article that discusses the coal-fired plant that was built in place of the proposed nuclear station. From a pragmatic viewpoint, if no additional information can be found, this one-sentence article should either get deleted or merged into a larger article or a list. — Rankiri (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rename to Somerset Power Plant, this active coal fired unit then to be the main topic of the article. The present text would be relevant in a section on the historical events preceeding the construction of coal unit. Agree that sources are too scarce to support a stand-alone article on the proposed nuclear facility. But there is no need to delete text that, with a few twists, is suitable elsewhere. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SEC Championship Game broadcasters

SEC Championship Game broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

SEC Championship Game is only 25kb long and this sublist is only 5kb long. This is in no way too long to be a single article per WP:SIZE. I merged the list to the main article leaving a note at Talk:SEC Championship Game, and a user has repeatedly reverted me without reason. There's simply no need to have two separate articles. Reywas92Talk 18:43, 31 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 19:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 17:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this isn't trivial information... who broadcasted the game determined where the vast majority of viewers saw it, it's a meaningful part of providing encyclopedic coverage of the topic. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It basically says "There has been little or no change in the announcers involved with the SEC games." Isn't that small enough to put on the article? ~ R.T.G 21:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete . OR fringe science thesis with many cherry-picked but wholly irrelevant sources. The early comments to this fact are not negated by the addition of different cherry-picked, irrelevant sources, as noted by pablomismo and Luckylouie. The kernal of fact here is already covered in Brain-computer interface#Military applications. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telepathy and war

Telepathy and war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is a mass of WP:OR and violates WP:NPOV quite fundamentally. Uses Slashdot as a source. Eg: "Considering that toy manufacturers are testing the market for the release of telepathic toys to children, it is likely that telepthic (sic) technologies have been in existance (sic) for years already and have been extensively tested on a wide range of people" Verbal chat 19:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects associated with this page include Silent Talk, Computer-mediated telepathy, and Synthetic Telepathy.
That is right, those redirects were all terms mentioned in the magazine Wired, and phrases which Darpa itself appears to have used in explaining the research to Wired reporters. New research, particularly cutting edge research, often generates new names and terms. Frei Hans (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wired, the BBC and the National Geographic Magazine are poor references? Foxnews and CNN are a fringe references? Duke University and the University of California, Los Angeles, (UCLA) who have been conducting brain-computer interface research on monkeys are poor references? Frei Hans (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A lot of it isn't sourced and the sources aren't supporting the conclusions being drawn. Cut out the unsourced stuff and there isn't anything coherent left worthy of an article. The article's subject isn't coherent and it attempts to prove that telepathic mind controlling technologies exist and are a imminent threat and will create an "Orwellian nightmare" based on the fact that scientists and the government are researching and trying to develop technologies to interpret brain waves and brain-computer interfaces. The article goes so far as to recommend adjustment of privacy laws. It reads like an argumentative paper instead of an encyclopedia article. Sifaka talk 19:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I struck my older explanation since the content of the article has changed since I last looked at the article. I merged the remaining section onto the main article telepathy as a new section.
Hey, these aren't attempts of mine to convince you that these technologies exist! I am only the Wikipedian researcher documenting related articles published in mainstream media. Wired reported that the National Research Council and the Defense Intelligence Agency have released material about research into the field of 'Synthetic Telepathy'. I was startled myself to find how many articles there are on Wikipedia that document advances in Brain-computer interfaceing and cybernetics. Frei Hans (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You laughed? Well then I have done my job in presenting these reports fearlessly! Frei Hans (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am the author of the initial entry. If you have particular suggestions for improvement or would like to write another draft please do so. However, I do not feel the topic should be deleted - it is a field of research and US military funds are going into it. Frei Hans (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, an expert in the difference between neuroscience technologies and telepathy. Could telepathy be considered the wireless application of software and neuroscience technologies to communicate without words or other outward signals and without the use of electrode implants? Because that is what Darpa is proposing. Frei Hans (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cats do like cheese. I can't believe we don't have an article about it. Fences and windows (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll start the stub Siamese cats-cheese relations. Oh, man, the possibilities for innumerable stubs of food/animal relations are endless! Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such a harsh critique DreamGuy! I haven't written an article as controversial as this before, covering recently reported research in science and technology. The US government hopes to apply this research to 'telepathic' soldiers on the battlefield. The research does sound absurd but reports in legitimate sources do document it and I am interested in covering the subject on Wikipedia. I do like your alternative title suggestion. How about Military research into telepathy? Frei Hans (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me to Brain-computer interface#Military applications. The article is related, but begins to deviate in that it seems the interfacing that Darpa has been researching has become wireless and increases the 'telepathic' element of sending messages through the power of thought over long distances without electrode implants and without laptops or handheld devices. Whew, a mouthful - 'telepathy' sums it up with so much more simplicity! Frei Hans (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of revisions to the article since, and a lot of subsequent discussion. I have read the revised article and the discussion, and I wanted to say that I'm still very firmly in the "delete" camp for the reasons I originally gave.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I am the author of the article. I have posted a more in depth reply on another noticeboard, where mention of this new article has also generated some comment. I thank all of you for your suggestions, and will take them on board in improving the article. I agree that it could sound far-fetched but considering that the science and technology magazine Wired recently published articles about research into telepathic applications for the battlefield, as funded by the US government and taken on by Darpa (a Pentagon division), then I am willing to open my mind a little to document articles of this nature through Wikipedia - and of course discuss the subject on Wikipedia discussion pages where Wikipedians feel the need. Essentially the intent of the article is to document advances related to the use of wireless cybernetics and 'telepathy' as funded by the US government for use on the battlefield (or by any other governments where evidence emerges that they have been researching 'telepathic' applications). The National Research Council and the Defense Intelligence Agency, as documented in the article, have been providing material to promote work in this field. The National Research Council and the Defense Intelligence Agency's material, and related articles about the control of robots through the power of thought, have recently been reported by Wired and other science publications. Frei Hans (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also inclined to vote delete, but I'm having a quick skim through to see if there's anything salvageable. The level of paranoia in the article is overwhelming! Papa November (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've chopped out all the unreferenced, irrelevant or POV material. I suggest that we merge the remainder into brain-computer interface and then delete. Papa November (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Papa November, I appreciate your assistance but you chopped out a referenced quote, and replaced it with the same quote and no block quote tag. I'll leave it for now but we should consider putting the content in block quotes because the original quote should be attributed unless it is reworded (which journalistically speaking would mean careful rewording that retains accuracy). Please be careful in editing because the whole article was well referenced from the outset - I deliberately made certain to footnote the content and would be sad to see references cut out by a user who complained the article was unreferenced! I would like to thank you for your contributions but I cannot see why anyone feels the article contains paranoid content. The article covers research into wireless 'telepathic' technology funded by the military. What is so paranoid about covering an interesting subject that has been recently reported in reputable science and technology publications? Perhaps I might be younger than some older critics here and have grown up in a world with wireless technology, and perhaps to an older user reporting these advances might seem strange and intimidating. I would like to steer clear of scaring anybody and am only updating Wikipedia with new and genuine reports into 'telepathic' technologies. However, if the content is scary for some users than I would be the last person to say they are not justified in questioning new technological advances funded by the army. Thanks again for your edits, I liked the reworking of the first introduction line. Frei Hans (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer keeping the article on a separate page as the topic exceeds brain-computer interfacing. I am considering a number of new options for renaming the article, including Military research into telepathy (based on suggestion from 'DreamGuy'), Telepathic technology, and Telepathic applications. Alternatively the topic could be moved to Computer-mediated telepathy or Synthetic Telepathy. Frei Hans (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Papa November, you just deleted content including 17 verifiable references from 17 separate legitimate sources. Why? Frei Hans (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with reasons cited above. --nemonoman (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the edit by Papa November into brain-computer interface and then Delete. I'm not intimidated by the subject, but I am scared of someone WP:SYNTH'ing a couple of WIRED articles into a highly personal essay. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were originally 19 references to 19 different sources related to this research, published by a number of well known and reputable news organisations and science publications including National Geographic, the BBC, and the websites of the universities where research was carried out on monkeys (the monkeys were trained to operate robotic arms remotely through the power of thought). 'Papa November' has gone ahead and deleted all but two of those original 19 references. Frei Hans (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

I removed several sections which have absolutely nothing to do with the use of telepathy in warfare. Yes, they were referenced but they had nothing to do with the subject matter. The referencing/paranoia issues have already been spelt out in some detail above, but I'll summarise a couple of the worst issues here:
  • The Duke and Pittsburgh primates research were not military projects, nor were they funded nor connected in any way with the military. Has any reliable source ever stated that they were?
  • The Orwellian section was totally unreferenced and hence removed.
  • The entire section about the toys had not been linked to the use of telepathy in warfare by any reliable source. Blogs/forums do not count. Has any reliable publication ever talked about such a connection?
  • "White torture" has nothing to do with telepathy. There are already several articles about torture here. The numerous statements you made in the section, which start "it is likely that", "it is possible that", "it is logical that" etc... are all original research and therefore forbidden from appearing in Wikipedia articles.
I read the page original research and nowhere does it state that the phrases "it is likely that", "it is possible that" and "it is logical that" are forbidden from appearing in Wikipedia articles. In fact, the page on original research itself uses the phrases "likely" and "possible" in the course of maintaining a neutral tone. The phrases are widely regarded as representing a neutral stance. They are neutral phrases in themselves, signifying caution, particularly when accompanied by referenced material or in neutral commentary covering a range of potentially controversial related reports and ideas. They are completely legitimate phrases to use when writing with neutrality. However, I am happy to consider replacing these with other phrases if other phrases can be shown to improve the page. I would like to add that a topic that might cover controversial research can still be considered neutral if presented fairly and in a neutral style. Wikipedia retains many topics, including topics that document controversial subjects - ideally covered in a neutral style. Frei Hans (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, the article may only contain material which is relevant to the subject, as stated directly by reliable sources. If it involves you coming to your own conclusion, it cannot be included. If you think I have removed any specific sections unfairly then please let me know. Papa November (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The University of California research using monkeys to control robotic arms remotely with their minds was funded by Darpa - the Pentagon division that Wired reported was carrying out research into 'Synthetic Telepathy'. All of this was referenced in the page I created, with links to reputable publications. The Orwellian section was referenced. The toys were developed by the military - an early version was developed in the 1970's and even has a Wikipedian entry of its own that I linked to. I referenced the news article about the toys that Mattel and Uncle Milton Industries were considering releasing. I have already made clear that I am happy to accept edits that conform to Wikipedia's style - but you have simply deleted entire referenced sections and quotes. The technology is being developed with the collaboration of the Defense Intelligence Agency - the Wired article referred to Defense Intelligence Agency material and specifically wrote that Darpa intended to use the technology on the battlefield and to intercept and influence 'enemy' command. White torture descriptions of sensory deprivation clearly echo research into brain-computer interfacing and EEG mapping. I believe most of the article, including block quotes and 17 references, has been removed unfairly. I would appreciate it more if you seemed to be helping to improve the article - but that is not the impression I am receiving. Frei Hans (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Orwellian section was not referenced. You wrote "The research points to tremendously disturbing implications including invasion of privacy and considerations formerly discussed only in science fiction. From 'thought police' to physical abuse that 'leaves no external marks', and outright attempts to influence and manipulate other peoples thoughts, this research tells the world that an Orwellian future has arrived and been surpassed by collaborations of media, propaganda and mind control that previously were considered delusions of the insane" title=Telepathy_and_war&oldid=295149789#Orwellian_future_surpassed Here is the link. Which references are you talking about? Papa November (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section was referenced, along with a sub-section referencing the toys. Frei Hans (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The toys subsection had one reference - I did not ask you about that. Specifically, the "lead" of the Orwell section was totally unreferenced? None of your cited references mentions Orwell, "thought police" or any of the rest of it. I suspect you came to your own logical conclusion. Right? Papa November (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not ask anything about the recent UCLA research. You did indeed provide a reference for this and I left that information in the article. However, the Duke and Pittsburgh research was nothing to do with the military. Papa November (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
University research is funded by the US government. Very similar research was carried out on all of the campuses. The research is clearly connected, and documented. After original criticism I actually rewrote and added more references - which you didn't even seem to see in your haste to remove content. Although the style was neutral to begin with, I wrote in the edit summary of a rewrite of one section (that took into consideration talk from yourself and others) 'convert to more neutral language', in another 'rework intro' and in a third edit summary 'rewrite section about telepathic technology and law'. You never paused once to check content that I was refining as you proceeded to remove almost everything. Might you not have looked for more references yourself instead of simply deleting everything ad hock without pausing? What is more, as I was rewriting content based on criticism, I was warned by 'Verbal' that he thought I was par-taking in an edit war (even as I worked to take into account suggestions made by other users!).Frei Hans (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all university research is funded by the US government. Even if it is, most of it is not funded by the US military! Having checked all your references, not one of them explicitly says that the Duke and Pittsburgh research was funded by or connected to the US military. Papa November (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I provided two references to reports from reputable sources. The reports cited research on a monkey, at Duke University, in developing the toys. [1] I also provided wiki links to Mindball and Will Ball. Will Ball has its origins in brain-computer interfacing and biofeedback research. Some early biofeedback research related to the game was conducted through the Menninger Foundation. Dr. Will Menninger, of the Mennigers involved in the Menniger Foundation, served as Chief of the Army Medical Corps' Psychiatric Division during World War II. You could have researched and added extra links related to this information, all documented on other undisputed Wikipedia pages, instead of simply removing content. Frei Hans (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make such tenuous links in articles. Put simply, if a reliable source says it directly, then you can include the material. You are not allowed to come to conclusions yourself. Once again, you haven't provided any evidence that the Duke research was a military contract. Also, if the civilian company Mattel happened to build upon some old research from an ex-military researcher, that doesn't make their product a military project! Did you know that one of the first major purchasers of teflon was the US government funded Manhattan Project? I can provide a reference to a reliable source. I used a teflon frying pan to make an omelette yesterday. By your rationale, I guess that means that my dinner was a US military inspired project, connected to nuclear proliferation? Papa November (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources describing white torture were reliable and referenced. The descriptions describe sensory deprivation - a method used in research into brain-computer interfacing and biofeedback research. The idea is to isolate the mind from interfering data, so that the mind can be mapped using EEG in combination with selected stimulus of parts of the brain. It is a very simple research concept that helps to isolate some brain activities from a diverse array of other brain activities - so that select brain activities can be analysed more easily. The technique has been adapted for use during interrogation and torture, particularly of journalists and political activists (whose minds are of great interest to some interrogators). Frei Hans (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there were references explaining what white torture and sensory deprivation are, and completely separate references explaining what BCI is, but that isn't what I asked. Where is the reference which states explicitly that the two are connected? Papa November (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, take a look at all the delete votes above. I have taken the time to salvage some bits of your article and now, thanks to my edits, a few people are talking about keeping the content I rescued. I think that constitutes "helping". Papa November (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian policy relating to content disputes points out that surveys and votes of this sort are poor ways of resolving editorial conflict. They can avoid conflict resolution or ignore mediation and are unreliable, particularly in an online environment. I should add that the Wikipedian community is made up of thousands of users and contributors and that only a handful have emerged to critique the article. Interestingly, the article was nominated for deletion by a user who was recently banned for edit warring. More strangely, the nominator was involved in an editorial war for trying to 'salvage' content that was un-referenced - yet here is trying to remove content that was very well referenced. Even stranger still, in purporting to 'salvage' and 'rescue' content, you actually deleted block quotes and 17 verifiable references from reputable sources. I appreciate help, but this seems to me to be an issue that has now become one of good editing and bad editing, in combination with users keen to provoke an edit war. Frei Hans (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dont let these shakes go on / Its time we had a break from it / Its time we had some leave / Weve been living in the flames / Weve been eating up our brains / Oh, please dont let theses shakes go on. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true. I take that criticism fully on board, and wish to revise my !vote from "Snow delete" to "Snow delete politely".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read the merge and found it a clumsy edit that sits awkwardly within the body of the rest of the article. How about taking responsibility for the edit and doing a job that can convince me this is a viable alternative - because now it appears the telepathy article needs a clean-up. Frei Hans (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As noted by Hrafn, the edited content would fit like a glove in the appropriate section of brain-computer interface. I recommend removing it from telepathy where it's clearly a bad fit. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not so fast. I just got here but, so far, am not seeing enough of a problem to justify deletion. The title seems a reasonably NPOV way of referring to this notable matter. There is no doubt much scope for improvement but peremptory deletion seems unhelpful. I shall look into the matter further, as time permits, and request that we use the full 7 days for discussion so that it may be properly evaluated. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that we are nearing a resolution. Papa November, who was involved in heavy deletion of references, has made a tagged draft which I have moved back to the original article - where it remains open for work on further citation and content. This version contains more reference material for editors to work with. When all parties involved in discussing this have had a chance to take a look, I would like to move on to discussing removing some of the banners at the top. It might pay to keep the tagged for rescue banner for a while. Frei Hans (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know what Colonel Warden expects us to rescue - an article on this topic is fundamentally flawed, as writing an article on telepathy and war required large amounts of original search, improper synthesis and POV writing. I support moving the material from Telepathy into Brain-computer interface, and then removing this article. It has no merit. Fences and windows (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably the Colonel suspects something can be done to save the article. I would suggest giving the benefit of the doubt and letting the AfD run full length. A few extra days won't hurt anything. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All it takes is a little experience with AFDs and you'll see that Colonel Warden thinks all sorts of truly awful articles can be "rescued" by tacking on some links that fail WP:RS standards and making a lot of aggressive and misleading comments on the AFD about how great a job he thinks he did. DreamGuy (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Guess I've been out of actual AfDs long enough that things have changed. In any case, considering there is near-unanimity to not keep, I don't see the harm in just letting the discussion run its course. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 1

It sounds like you might be saying we should try to squeeze all the information relating to telepathy into the one article? I hope not, its a vast field of human experience. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I wasn't saying that. I meant that if there has been specific research into the use of telepathy in warfare[dubious – discuss] then that would be best presented in the article of telepathy.  pablohablo. 13:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: appear to have resolved some issues
  • At least three users are now working to improve this article. Papa November provided a new draft, Colonel Warden has made constructive edits. I am working to convert a neutral point of view style to an even more neutral style, and over time to work on citation and references.
  • Other users have begun working in favour of merging some content with other articles.
  • A user has flagged the page for rescue.
  • The article falls within the scope of WikiProject Rational Skepticism.
  • Verbal is par-taking by reverting content to a version with far fewer references and barely any citation and by posting "edit-war" messages on my user page. I have invited him to discuss the article on the article page and drop me a note if he does so.

Frei Hans (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a strong delete. Papa November moved the bad article into userspace so it could be improved, not simply moved back by edit warring. CW has simply tagged the article and then reverted a policy and talk supported removal of the OR. It is very much still a strong delete, as supported by the snowfall above. Verbal chat 08:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Despite my attempts to remove all the POV/OR/SYN, the article has now been reverted back almost to its original form. I'm not going to waste my time trying to help rescue the content any longer. All the useful content has already been merged into Telepathy. I think the rest of the article is irredeemable for all the reasons stated above. I'm changing my vote to delete. Papa November (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect some users seem to misunderstand the process of this discussion. These are not votes that users are casting, they are comments on an article. AfDs are "a place for rational discussion... The debate is not a vote". Consensus to delete has not been reached because the article is valid, is within the scope of WikiProject Rational Skepticism, can be referenced and cited, and is of interest to some users who have been editing it (and whose edits I have been taking in "good faith"). Again, I will point out that the move for deletion came from Verbal, who it seems is intent on generating "edit wars" by deliberately provoking other editors (he kept posting "edit war" notices on my user page). I also suspect sock puppetry from some of those moving deletion. Shortly after Verbal attempted to revert content to an almost unreferenced state, a user with the IP 160.103.2.223 blank tagged the article. The blank tag was removed within a minute by a bot that cited possible vandalism. To me it seems some users involved are more intent on disrupting and vandalising content then in working collaboratively. The article is far from what it was in "its original form". It is awkward taking on suggestions from users who seem only to want to destroy work and not build it. Frei Hans (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the posting of the notices is to try and stop you from getting blocked fro breaking WP:3RR. However, as I pointed out to you, you have gone beyond 3 reverts in 24hrs now. I have not asked for you to be blocked (others may) but have instead tried to discuss this with you and give you helpful advice. In return I get accusations and insinuations. It is currently clear that this article will be deleted, please don't take it personally and it isn't worth getting blocked over. Verbal chat 13:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nothing has been "resolved" by the restoration of the article to its nearly original problematic state. Sadly, Frei Hans clings to an essentially flawed understanding of WP editorial policy despite the efforts of well-meaning editors to guide him. Any useful content has since been merged to another article, so deletion of "Telepathy and war" should follow. - LuckyLouie (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this argument for "merge". Advances in neuroscience that may make it possible through sophisticated brain activity imaging to infer what is going on in the mind of a subject via a brain scan (or allow for the electrical impulses in the brain to become the on-switch for various mechanical processes) is not about telepathy which implies some kind of magical brain-to-brain "mind-reading" nor "telekenisis" which implies some sort of magical ability to move things by "thought." If such technologies are fully developed some day (and why not? Seems within the realm of the possible) they will involve powerful computers, highly sensitive and focused thermal scanners, some kind of radio or microwave transmission, and some sort of recieving/transmitting brain interface, probably installed by surgery. This is all very interesting. Neuroscience in general is fascinating. But it aint "telepathy" and this article as is is an unholy mess of muddled thinking, original research, and synthesis. Information on all of the relevant science is already contained in the article on Brain-computer interface at a level of detail, clarity and reliable sourcing that puts this article to shame. There is nothing here that could be "merged" to that scientific article without degrading its overall quality. This is not only a content fork, but vastly inferior to the appropriate article and misleading to boot.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly certain a brain-computer interface does not need to be implanted. The material referenced in the article stated that DARPA was investigating placing thoughts into the minds of the enemy and influencing enemy command. A lot of research seems to be going into remote control. If the military can't catch an "enemy", but can trace them - or if they didn't want to "catch" an enemy but did want to "use" them - then the technology would be most powerful if you didn't have to actually capture an enemy mind and implant it with a device. Infrared technology can already track humans without tagging them, and non-invasive EEG reading systems already exist - making "mind reading" without implants feasible. I suspect that if something did need to be introduced to the human body it might be in the form of drugs or mineral elements that could be ingested and that might aid in taking EEG readings - but I believe that existing technology has developed beyond introducing foreign bodies to a person and is based on reading electromagnetic patterns remotely. Frei Hans (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is going to rescue this article. It is unsalvageable, particularly as Frei Hans won't let anyone else edit it. What Bali ultimate said too. Fences and windows (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Synthetic telepathy. I've changed my mind, based on discussions with User:Bali ultimate. It's not "real telepathy" we're talking about but an artificial imitation. We can describe the military applications (current and hoped for). --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bali ultimate just reverted my edit. I had two verifiiable sources about monkey experiments using electrodes, computer interface(s), and robotic arm(s) and how these monkeys successfully carried out the experiment. I wrote in the Monkey Experiment section about these experiments and their results. Now gone. In the talk page he says this not "telepathy". So, yes, delete for the reason just given. If he is looking for verifiable sources on pure telepathy I doubt he will find any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ti-30X (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to sign this earlier so I will sign this now Ti-30X (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the time being. I have no prejudice against a well-referenced article on this subject being written in theory, but this isn't it: it's one paragraph of actually relevant information together with several more paragraphs of vaguely related synthesis. If it was just reduced to the information about the DARPA funding for 'telepathy research', there wouldn't be enough to justify an article. A search for additional references didn't provide anything further to add; while there may be more to say about this research in the future, at the moment an article isn't warranted. Robofish (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore to this version then edit to make more encyclopaedic while retaining all the information and as much of the excellent original presentation as possible. It might be worth addressing the fringe POV on offer in this AfD. There are abundant verifiable sources on telepathy and psychic powers. For example Dr Dean Radins demonstrations of precognition have been replicated and verified by labs all round the world. Horizon (a mainstream TV program here in the UK) aired a program almost 18 months back concerning Radins work where they talked about the PSI effects the Pentagon are hoping to utilise for their mind reading binoculars being potentially helpful even for domestic applications like forewarning of accidents while driving. This is far from leading edge stuff. Atheists can bang on about the supernatural not existing as much as they like – in the world of facts that view is shared by less than 5% of the global population. Serious people don't take their preaching seriously even when the atheists happen to be scientists, its well known hard core skeptics will fabricate evidence to cover up findings that confirm supernatural effects. So called mainstream scientists even falsify findings in medical research regardless of the possible consequences for patients. That said you guys are of course entitled believe what you like , but pushing a fringe POV so strongly violates our NPOV policy. I wont push this if my efforts aren't appreciated, but if any you are open to reassessing your position I'll be delighted to point you towards the extensive scientific literature and I could even pray for you to receive a revelation of Gods supernatural Love for us. If you guys are up for a change of heart we might be able to get some sympathetic treatment for this important article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Verbal chat 12:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that wikipedia is a playground for people who have that approach to reality (i.e. "telepathy is an important part of the human experience...."). We just have someone who argued "keep" for an article with no sources on the topic because apparently medical science is a "fringe pov" and "atheists can bang on about the supernatural not existing as much as they like -- in the world of facts that view is shared by less than 5% of the global population." Member of the ARS too. The whole thing would be cute if it wasn't so sad.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to see how anyone’s chosen religion would affect this article, but thanks for sharing, and I'll have a set of those mind-reading binoculars please.  pablohablo. 19:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Err yes, the version you preferred had been used as a starting point and "made more encyclopedic" on two separate occasions, by independent editors (the original author reverted it after the first attempt). On both occasions, it ended up in a state similar to its present one. The reason is that all the removed material was totally irrelevant to the subject or was just a set of synthesized opinion by the author. Papa November (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its certainly a shame that a lot of time and energy will have be spent in vain on this article, no matter what the result here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree it's sad so much time is wasted because some people don't have a grip on what consistitues an acceptable encyclopedic topic. But since some people don't, the time must be wasted.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article got snowed in AfD because of bias against the subject. It got snowed because it made a bunch of paranoid WP:SYNTH connections between ideas and strung them together on a WP:COATRACK, e.g....DARPA wants to read minds....monkeys are being experimented on right now...brain control can lead to brainwashing...subliminal suggestion....psychological torture....we need laws to protect us from what may happen in the future... etc. OK for a tin foil hat website, but not for Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase what LuckyLouie said: This article is a very, very personal document. It may have its place in a medical record, but certainly not on a public server. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does violate our current synth guideline, but probably fewer be so concerned about if not for the bias issue.
Thats clear Hans, but a little harsh. While the article takes a worse case view, the dangers it warns against are no worse than events which undeniably occurred with MKULTRA . I trust the US government to be essentially benign, but the head doesn't always know what the hands are doing , so it's a shame it looks like this information is going to be covered up. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Typical Cheese denier tactics. Wikipedia is not a SOAPBOX for your anti-Cheese views. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's worse than that. It's the cheese denier plot. Here's even an article on government cheese research. [13]. Yet Wikipedia continues to suppress Global warming and cheese. CeNSOrshiP!!!!Bali ultimate (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right about the name change DreamFocus. I called the article Psi-Tech and war when I copied it to wiki info, as not all the content is strictly about telepathy. Taking pablo’s point on board maybe Military applications of Pisi Tech would be better? FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, a title change is not the only thing needed to fix it, unless you propose something like
Research by civilian and US governmental (but mainly civilian) organizations into (non-telepathic) brain-computer interaction hardware, unconnected uses of psychological (non-telepathic) interrogation methods by the US government and an unconnected summary of the non-existence of legislation to deal with unidentified threats from non-existent devices which are not being developed, compiled arbitrarily by a Wikipedia editor
. Papa November (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has plenty of third party news coverage. I just added a link to an MSN news article, and an interesting fact from there, showing a guy using an EEG to send Morse code messages with his brain back in the 1960's. Perhaps a rename to, using brain signals to send messages. Or I believe there are brain machine interface articles, since they teach classes on that at MIT and elsewhere. I've read articles about commercial devices that allow you to play games and interact with the computer with just a 500 dollar device on your head, I getting an email from one of these companies recently, having signed up for information on it. Not buying one until its out, and proven to be working as well as they say though. Dream Focus 19:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It’s telepathy, not telegraphy.  pablohablo. 19:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never seen more work put into editing an article that will undoubtedly be deleted. I admit having gotten sucked into this vortex as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Make yourself comfortable, have a deckchair.  pablohablo. 19:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Might be a good case study for problems with the ARS". As a member of the ARS, can I say that I have no idea what other members think they're doing in tagging this and arguing for keep. This is not an ARS problem, it's a problem with a handful of editors - Granite thump, Colonel Warden, FeydHuxtable, Dream Focus - who seem to have no ability to discriminate between articles on notable topics and synthesis-filled POV content forks like this. Fences and windows (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was quite shocked when I realised there is a rescue tag on this article. However, the tag was added by Colonel Warden after Papa November brought the article into a sane state, and before Frei Hans reverted. [14] Similarly, Colonel Warden's keep !vote, and also those by Dream Focus and Granite thump [15], were clearly the result of timing. That only leaves me puzzled what on earth makes Feyd think that a public statement about discontinued medication belongs into an encyclopedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some mitigating circumstances then! But the stubbified article was still a pointless fork of Brain-computer interface#Military applications. Fences and windows (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As verbal is also a member , he possibly meant to say a case study to highlight our excellence rather than problems. This AfD has several members voting delete, and you yourself haven’t hesitated to robustly criticise folk like myself and even veteran members like the Colonel. Its shows the mighty ARS is no hive mind, with members interpedently working to improve the encyclopaedia as they think best. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant it hgihlights problems with the ARS - such as certain members. This AfD might give good evidence for evicting members of the ARS who are bringing the group into disrepute. ARS has a fine goal. Saving every article, or in certain case voting keep just because someone else said delete, is not the goal. Verbal chat 12:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me stop you right there. We don't evict people from projects, we work with folks to help them become better Wikipedians. The converse to every ARS is flawed statement is generally that so is AfD. Are there ARS folks who may be faulty in assessment, of course. But so are there those who nom article often faulty in their assessment. We don't evict either or throw anyone out of the process. We work with them so they may improve and become a better voice of reason based in policies, a better Wikipedian. ARS focusses on AfD which is an often heated area of Wikipedia where conflicts, disagreements and polarized opinions are common. All those who are perfect please raise your hands ... okay, seeing no hands I'll posit that none of us are perfect and we all can improve. The goal of ARS is not to "win" anything but to target items tagged for rescue that can be improved. If some of the folks here are working to improve content let them. They are volunteers too and can choose where to invest their energy without undo criticism. If you have constructive criticism for them then let that speak for itself. Let's also agree that as much as ARS has been accused of group think and other unsavory offenses this is yet a perfect example where some ARS folks are in fact putting their words into action and trying to find a path to rescuing content and other ARS folks simply disagree but are happy to let them try and will honor their work with help if they can. Our readers deserve the best encyclopedia possible and this is part of that process. Messy at times but ultimately delivering a better end result. -- Banjeboi 19:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
brilliantly well said Benjiboi! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 2

  • Fences and windows, do you not believe that the references to third party media sources meet all requirements wikipedia has for an article? Obviously, if others don't believe the same thing you do, then surely it must be them with the problem, and never you, of course. The article needs some work, but AFD is not cleanup. There is plenty of information about this. It is an interesting topic. I saw it today on the Rescue squardon list, wondering why I didn't notice it before. Dream Focus 01:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why tell me that AfD is not cleanup? I'm arguing that this article is fundamentally flawed and cannot be rescued. The article still stitches together irrelevant info to pad it out. The research on monkeys to help paralysed patients has nothing to do with telepathy or war. Subliminal messages are not telepathy. Reading brain activity using technology is not "telepathy". Telepathy is "apparent communication from one mind to another without using sensory perceptions"; this article has nothing to do with that. As you seem not to have noticed, we already have an article that covers the topic of the Wired article, namely Brain-computer interface#Military applications. Fences and windows (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Telepathy comes from two Greek words meaning "distance" and "to influence". I added government reports on how to do that, and mentioned the research done by the Air Force to use microwaves to put voices in someone's head, as well as DARPA now funding research to send sound to someone without those around them hearing them. Telepathy in war. Hmm.. Why does it say Telepathy AND war, instead of Telepathy IN war? Using a device in a monkey's brain to move a mechanical arm and legs around from a distance, is quite relevant, since soldiers will do that in the future with killer robots. They will influence them from a distance, using telepathy in war. Dream Focus 03:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you win. I am taking back my statement above that your keep !vote was the result of timing. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're not trying to imply squad members arrived as a result of some form of borg like telepathy? I know what you're like with your subtle jests, it took me a week to get the jokes in your Kohl and Tucholsky page. The peoples encylopedia is not the place for elite humour! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your first sentence, but I totally agree with your last sentence and have in the past argued accordingly before Arbcom: "[...] Wikipedia values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgement or writing abilities). Elitism is against the core principles of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; [...] Moreover, anyone who uses humour in Wikipedia (and especially in project space) exhibits a severe lack of respect for those of their fellow editors who have no sense for it." [16] --Hans Adler (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, would you like a spade to help with that hole you're digging for yourself? Inventing your own definition of a word based on its etymology is a glaring example of original research, and asserting that current research on monkeys will in the future be used by soldiers in killer robots is improper synthesis and crystal ballery.
The referenced articles mentioned the monkey research will be used by soldiers in hazardous situations in the future. Just follow the link. And my definition of it was from the wikipedia article on telepathy. And if the only problem is from the word telepathy, the article's name could be changed, that solving that problem. Dream Focus 21:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hans, I love this comment: "Wikipedia values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgement or writing abilities)". You win this thread. Fences and windows (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has improved to be less of a personal essay, but neither my attempts nor the sources presented delineate a viable article, gee whiz comparisons notwithstanding. I expected to find something around MKULTRA, so a merge might be in order if someone more experienced at finding good sources in that area can turn up some nice independent in depth coverage. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that the article was merged so we cannot delete per the GFDL. Granite thump (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonesense born out of a misunderstanding of GFDL and various policies here. That similiar information is duplicated in the appropriate place, rather than this content fork, does not mean we can't delete unencyclopedic garbage. Really, Granite Thump, "tktkt so we cannot delete" is just false.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "current" version is a heavily censored and crippled one. The last time I worked on it, it had about 26 references including new ones. That has all been cut out again, I suspect by sock puppets belonging to the original "team" who decided in their bias to campaign for the article's deletion. Sadly for them, the article has gathered a number of supporters and generated more interest than I believed it would when I first submitted it. I cannot understand why someone who posted a bunch of tags asking for more references, then went and deleted the whole lot after more information from reputable sources was added. Frei Hans (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frei Hans, who is "censoring" the article and why? - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing here but "they" are probably doing the censoring.  pablohablo. 23:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"That has all been cut out again, I suspect by sock puppets belonging to the original "team" who decided in their bias to campaign for the article's deletion." Woah, careful with those accusations! Which editors exactly are you accusing of being sockpuppets? Fences and windows (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I am making a note back on the article discussion page (which has been overflowing onto other pages including here) about a method for dealing with all of the constant deleting and rewriting. It might be best to approach the topic as a timeline, adding bullet points summarising reports. Because what seems to be happening is that one or two people are deleting while others are contributing. Because those contributing are constantly having their headings and contributions removed, they are unable to see new content in context and some content is being repeated under new headings while a lot of other content has vanished. A bullet pointed list of reports and publications, ordered by date, could help to prevent this. Frei Hans (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hans - I saw the original article, and I can see what you are now doing with it. It is a fact that "war" has always been, and still is, a huge driver for any research. Perhaps the biggest. If any research is being done into anything, telepathy and telekinesis included then governments will be looking at military applications for same. That makes this article as useful as articles based on the other big research drivers. This encyclopedia does not need articles on Telepathy and medicine or Telepathy and pornography - and it certainly doesn't need this one.  pablohablo. 17:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer. I'm not sure if anyone from the military history project, which is quite active and likely could offer a more educated perspective from a military view, has been asked. I'm going to ask them now to take a look at the current version to see if this may be useable or possibly redundant to other articles. In either case please allow some time from this post so that they can have some input here. -- Banjeboi 19:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. Frei Hans seems every bit the newby Wikipedian but has taken on some of the steamy criticisms ans seemingly rewritten the entire article, perhaps a couple times. The current version seems absent of the reasons for the original nom and the subject itself is notable and now referenced to reliable sources. In a quick look I found a few more so I have no doubt plenty exist. To me the outsatnding issue remains a more NPOV and accurate title. Pablomismo has a spot-on comment that of course the military is doing research on this. They research everything. Having stated that this could be a good stand-alone article, for a while at least, focussing on military research of telepathy including the history. I think a note pointing to the main telepathy article concerning popular culture references would suffice but deleting isn't appropriate after the clean-up, pruning and rewrite. -- Banjeboi 20:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There are whole telivision series didicated to the role that telepthy plays in police work, so why it makes sense then that we should have at least one article on tlelpathy as it relates to war. There are documented cases of psychics being saught for information during war; in fact, the book Secret weapons on the cold war notes that after the appearence of the book psychic discoveries behind the iron curtain the dod sought out psychics and other mind readers as early as the 1970s to assist the united states agains the soviet union. Although I admit that the subject matter compells close and constant monitoring the concept upon which the article was created is in fact sound and true. The article needs to be kept. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do like an imaginative TV series myself, I was a particular fan of Stargate and Buffy. However I don't think there would be any benefit in articles speculating about how the military are preparing to cope with an invasion from the hellmouth or where they may be hiding the secretly-buried Stargates that are our legacy.  pablohablo. 21:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to an imaginative TV series, I was referring to Psychic Detectives. As to the fictional events you are discussing: pshychics were used in the cold war with limited success, they located previously unknown nuclear sites and even found a downed soviet bomber. They were also used to locate targets of interest in Desert Storm. I'm not saying that the future will pit psychics against normies, I'm just saying that the article deserves a chance to organize itself before being axed. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't familiar with Psychic Detectives, but have since learnt that "The series production does not investigate the claims of the psychics showcased or confirm their claims. For entertainment it instead recreates some of the atmosphere surrounding psychic claims" emphasis added - so it's basically fiction then.  pablohablo. 21:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing my point: If they can have a tv show based on bits and pieces of the truth then we should be allowed to create a well written and well cited article on the subject, don't you think? An article can go to afd any number of times (like at GNAA article) but once deleted its odds of coming back are slim to none. At the very least, grant a stay of execution so we can see if anything can be done. If not, then I will be the first to vote delete for the next afd, but I feel that the article has a chance to exist here and I would like a chance to see what new material turns up on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bits and pieces of the truth do indeed make for the best kind of fiction. I look forward to see what material turns up, but must admit I expect it to run thus:
  • Governments research into telepathy/telekinesis etc - this is a fact.
  • If they could get it to work they might do "X", "Y", "monkey's arm" and "Z" with it
  • zOMG remote controlled hans-frei hands-free brain-controlled robots are imminent!!!!!!!!!!!!  pablohablo. 22:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Telepathy and war in popular culture...[17]. Fences and windows (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (temporary stay of execution): I believe the comment that Tom made is correct. I have seen a number of documentaries discussing the use of psychics to 'remote view' locations during the Cold War. I have also seen a documentary on the use of 'psychic warfare' by the Germans and British during the Second World War. Having said of that, as Tom states, we need to keep a close eye on a subject like this as it can quite easily get filled up with outlandish claims, etc. As the article stands at the moment there seems to be a lot of sources cited and I could see the article being developed with some mention of the historic applications of telepathy in Second World War and the Cold War, however, it would need a number of committed contributors to produce this. Perhaps if there are a number of willing people, the article could be rewritten and then a peer review could be conducted. If the article was found not to be up to standard at peer review it could either be fixed, or go to AfD then. Having said all of this, rule number one is never volunteer, so let it be clear I'm not volunteering to work on this article. (That, of course, may be construed as a cop out). — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article now seems to have morphed into a collection of items vaguely related to "Military Psychic Warfare and Spying" that lumps such stuff as remote viewing in with 'monkey's arm' type experiments. We already have a more encyclopedic (and less hysterical) treatment of the subject at Brain-computer_interface#Military_applications. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Antonov (footballer)

Vadim Antonov (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-existant footballer. Appears to be something somebody made up on an internet forum. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ActionTrip

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

Just some website with no independent reliable sources with non-trivial coverage demonstrating any notability. Tagged as needing sources since Feb. 2008. DreamGuy (talk) 18:55, 7 June 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, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unreferenced. Show me a footnote and I'll consider degree of notability, multiple non-trivial references and then this would start being an article. -Markeer 00:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (and not in any sense a !vote): this isn't an open-and-shut case. Take a look at the Alexa rank here and the site analytics here: it's a very popular website. And yes, I know Alexa rank's an argument to avoid, but I do not intend to disregard an obvious indicator of notability just because of an essay that I don't agree with.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if a site could be shown reliably to be high traffic that alone would not demonstrate any actual notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. A whole lot of people doing something not particularly noteworthy together and not getting noticed for it is still nothing of any note. DreamGuy (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the Alexa rank is a reasonable indicator of potential notability, but I simply can't find any useful coverage in independent sources to back that notability indication up, and produce a verifiable article. ~ mazca t/c 17:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The tone is dreadful at times and the lack of sourcing doesn't help. However gaming industry is notorious for having wonky sources - most are online and bloglike so have to be weeded through and this is a Eastern-Europe website as well? This would suggest a double layer of systematic bias that I'm reluctant to delete anything over. I would feel more confident if we had someone fluent in both sourcing gaming articles who also is fluent in the languages the potential sources are actually in. At this point I'm more inclines to weak keep based on these issues and the Alexa rankings which remain a good indication of web traffic. I suggest a stay of execution here, a clean-up to wikify, add website infobox and seek translation help although sourcing a gaming website article may not eseem like the most pressing concern. -- Banjeboi 09:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knowthyneighbor.org

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

Self-promotion of margnially notable Web site mhking (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to make changes you suggest to the article to satisfy genuine concerns, but I think you need to get past the idea knowthyneighbor.org is not note worthy. That criteria as others have now pointed out is satisfied.Salemmaman (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and brought up some of the news sources for this group so that the matter of notability could be settled:

KTN in the news:

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/258391/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/12/22/petition_vs_gay_marriage_advances/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/10/05/lawmakers_to_air_complaints_about_marriage_petition_drive/

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MH&s_site=miami&p_multi=MH&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=12286B11795CF3A8&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WO&p_theme=wo&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=117DB021F14A1E48&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/042809_Ark_Group_Wants_AntiGay_Petitioners_Kept_Secret

http://www.winknews.com/news/local/15751107.html

http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8RDFLA80.html

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=RM&p_theme=rm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=11322408666400C0&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=PBEB&p_theme=pbeb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=1128142D4162B4B0&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WO&p_theme=wo&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=10D3F4388BBE4D48&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://www.thedalleschronicle.com/news/2007/09/news09-04-07-02.shtml

http://www.wickedlocal.com/brewster/archive/x563250007

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=21122

http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/07-06/07-27-06/04state-region.htm

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WO&p_theme=wo&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=10F1A1C9CF2C3378&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://www.kcby.com/news/9548102.html

http://www.salemnews.com/punews/local_story_128094029

http://www.mywire.com/a/TheAdvocate/Aaron-Toleos-cool-gay-rights/5473217?extID=10051

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=RO&p_theme=ro&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=1159F88935CCD3C0&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=39577&category=22101

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/05177324.asp

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-2028.html

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/puopinion/local_story_270093950?keyword=topstory

http://it.peacereporter.net/articolo/5902/

http://www.eagletribune.com/puopinion/local_story_274093843?keyword=secondarystory

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/06/08/gloucester_lawyer_to_challenge_kerry/

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-140148376.html

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060706/intimidation-tactics/index.html

http://www.thecabin.net/stories/043009/opi_0430090022.shtml

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/08/gop_director_uses_web_to_liven_the_party/

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WO&p_theme=wo&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=116FDCA9CD5CD660&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/07-06/07-02-06/01state-region.htm

http://www.americandaily.com/article/20034

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/international/ticker/detail/Gays_accused_of_discrimination_in_US_resort_village.html?siteSect=143&sid=6911755&cKey=1153437754000

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/101807/met_209423458.shtml

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid32973.asp

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=20763

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ci=108&ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=17450

http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/6103.article

http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Ne&article_code=4211

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=52013

http://www.worcestermag.com/archives/2006/01-05-06/worcesteria.html

http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Ne&article_code=2491

http://www.thebostonpilot.com/articleprint.asp?id=4583

http://www.queer.de/detail.php?article_id=5077

http://holebi.info/phpnews/kortnews.php?action=fullnews&id=3461

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-1718.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc3GBFn9_yY&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVQNLgscFJk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIPGAJTAc2o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_SjFQXspqk&feature=channel <====CNN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzgf7QSN3Qk&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMGUaCpmEPU&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ_YOzC5aSE&feature=channel <====KTN advocates on newsSalemmaman (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted (G11) by Mifter. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Cap

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

"This is only sold on ebay.com" - this suggests the article is spam and the item is non-notable. I42 (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete G11. This should qualify, it doesn't explicitly say go buy it, but it's close enought. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy db-spam/G11. I would have voted against speedy delete, right up until "This is only sold on ebay.com". I don't think removing that sentence would solve the underlying problem, that this article is intended to be promotional. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ÷seresin 02:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Party Ave!

Roman Party Ave! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recently created political party with one member. Very trivial coverage. Beach drifter (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep this here - it has sources. everything needs a wiki entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.178.18 (talk)
  • Keep they get some votes making them notable enough in elections. I think Wikipiedia should have an article about the party to educate people about this party. Jolly Ω Janner 01:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many tiny political parties are formed to make some point. They are not notable until something happens (at least win a seat). I looked at each ref – they say absolutely nothing other than what is in the article (a party consisting of one person is contesting an election). Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is a loonatic Bus driver and this must stay because he is a great excentric.--84.66.83.47 (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotal evidence regarding noteworthiness: during the Play Radio UK election broadcast [18] questions were sent in asking about this party and, of course, answers were not readily available. This page explaining the nature and platform of the party would no doubt have been useful were it available / discovered by the presenters of the program. This program claimed to have about 2000 listeners.--Sjgibbs (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This should be kept. It is a perfectly valid political party that has been regisitered just like any other. It explains what the party stands for.

In a few quick internet searches it is impossible to find out what this party is or is about, this provides the information to find this out. Threads and forums are the only available sources. After all, most people come to Wikipedia to find out these small kinds of facts that niggle you.

Charliedeacon —Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

KEEP He got almost 5,500 votes, and wiki is one of the few places on the internet you can get information on the party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickuae (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (or just possibly merge to a list of minor parties in the UK). As above, has enough sources to be verifiable and notable and the information should not be lost from the WP. Greenshed (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, over two million people who voted in the South East Euro constituency will have seen this party on their ballot paper (or at least those who looked at the whole list). Greenshed (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (unless someone creates a suitable article this can be merged into). All of the sources are standard coverage that is applied to every single party, no matter how small. Since this party is little more than a one-candidate show, and WP:POLITICIAN is very clear that simply being a candidate doesn't confer notability, I don't see how this has any claim. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what will be gained by deleting this? Nothing at all. It will simply remove the only readily available source of information on this party (not the only source - the only readily available source) and thus do a disservice to the several million voters in the South East that found it on their ballot paper. The article is clear, well written and collects from a number of sources. The party exists and is a registered party that has contested several elections, that is considerably more notable than just being an independent candidate. Agrestis (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep . The deletion arguments are neatly refuted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mirko Kovats

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

Questionable notability, reads like a cut and paste. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. was speedied (G12) two days ago by Graeme Bartlett, so I'm just closing for sake of AfD archives Valley2city‽ 05:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Tudor

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

contested speedy, unsourced BLP created to assist in future political campaign. Considerable military career but nothing notable enough to warrant an article, especially in light of the coi and the political aims. Beach drifter (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Allison

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

I fail to see the purpose of this page. This person does not appear to be any more important than any one else. To be reasonable, if this person is allowed a unique page, then virtually every other person deserves one as well. Given that numerous pages about other people are often removed for similar reasons, this page should also be taken down.

She has no concrete accomplishments to speak of, no examples of impact upon society, the arts, sciences, politics, etc. She merely is someone who has been a successful self-promoter. Her references are themselves opportunistic attempts to self-promote. I do not feel that this page should remain; unless the page is dedicated to the CONCEPT of self-promotion, with this person as an example, citing whatever event(s), procedures, ideas or experiences were employed in order to successfully self-promote.

The purpose of Wikipedia is, and has always been, a means to access useful information to educate and reference. This person and the information associated with her, is not useful nor does it educate; consequently it does not merit display here. Keeping this article says that people who wish to create useless pages for no other purpose than personal gain are more important than those who actually affect society, yet either do not have the time or inclination to create a page for themselves. Wikipedia is about objective reporting and recording of useful facts, events, people, ideas, concepts and phenomena. It is quite simply, not a forum for autobiographical publicity. There are several, reputable websites for such purposes, and I submit that this article has been misplaced.

Due to the fact that this article has been "semi-protected", there is no other recourse or mechanism for recommendation for deletion, such as ":subst:afdl" or "subst:afdx". I request that the article, if not deleted immediately, have its protection removed so that it can be properly discussed, and requests for deletion can be tendered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.225.220 (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

IP left a message on my talk page and the article's talk page wanting this article to be deleted, since the article is semi-protected from editing due to BLP issues. Personally, I have no opinion on this matter. miranda 18:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pen y fai haunted house

Pen y fai haunted house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, author claims it is local folklore. Appears to be very local juvenile folklore. Requests for sourcing have not been answered. Beach drifter (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE before considering deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was not yet notable. DS (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarey Savvy

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

I don't think this singer meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. The only Ghits I found for him are YouTube, MySpace, other Wikipedia articles, and places that just mention his name in passing. In addition, the supposed "official website" reference in the article leads to a dead link. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article does meet the critical condition because the official website known as Banner is the official if you type it on the address bar it works for sure i double checked everything so please do not delete it it mean a lot for fans. (Channel 6 (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion guidelines. Beach drifter (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest T. Cragg

Ernest T. Cragg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject doesn't meet notability requirements. He served his country, which is admirable, but he doesn't appear to have a military record any more distinguished than thousands of others who have served. The article was created by the subject's son which is a nice gesture but where would Wikipedia be if every child of military personnel decide to write articles about their parents? LargoLarry (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it is irrelevant who created the article, it is well written, notable and has reliable sources. Pahari Sahib 17:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just because sources are linked from and cited in the article doesn't make the subject notable. The multiple sources include a high school year book, the USMA year book, a marriage notice, an unreferenced "oral history" interview, a listing in a handbook for military retirees, and an obituary written by the subject's son according to the article's discussion page. These don't seem to be very significant to me. LargoLarry (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Comment And yes, it is relevant who created an article if it was created by someone just to honor his late father on Memorial Day 2008, which he says at User:ecragg. LargoLarry (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's not "game over" at all. The Seattle Times item is just a marriage announcement. Getting married doesn't make someone notable. The Washington Post article is an obituary written by the subject's son, which can't be considered truly objective. LargoLarry (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The notability guideline says sources must be "independent of the subject", which excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject. The obituary is a work produced by someone affiliated with the subject, namely his son. LargoLarry (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable - USAF bio link now updated. don't the Milhist project have specialist notability criteria? Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - would it be appropriate for me to comment, or does my conflict of interest exclude me? Ecragg (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to make two observations:
  • The United States Air Force Biography web site was restructured (which broke ALL Wikipedia references to it). In this case the link has been repaired and his official biography is now accessable from the article.
  • My comments related to the copyright of the Washington Post obituary refered to the fact that the reporter took notes I sent him about my father's life after retirement and incorporated them verbatim into the obituary. I did NOT write the obituary. This is far more a comment on the current state of reporting in print media than upon notability. A reliable source that was independent of the subject (an editor at the Washington Post) decided he was notable enough to justify assigning a reporter to write an obituary about him and the newspaper subsequently published it. In addition another reliable source that was independent of the subject (the Washington Post Reporter) felt that my notes were significant enough for inclusion in the obituary. Any copyright issue associated with the obituary is now moot as that section was rewritten after Gene93k pointed out the issue.
One last comment, he was not "a listing in a handbook for military retirees", he was the author of the handbook. (see http://www.amazon.com/CAT-Revised-Space-Handbook-Retires/dp/B000GWICWA/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244461890&sr=8-3) Ecragg (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references are being moved to inline citations.Ecragg (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: subject was a major general, which seems fairly notable to me. Additionally I feel that the 'consistently receives awards' criteria is met by this subject (14 Air Medals, as well as many others). Further, the article has sources, most of which seem reliable. I don't feel that the fact that the original editor was his son is a problem, so long as that is made clear and everything is sourced. If it is sourced to reliable sources, then it is possible to detect and fix any bias. In this regard, some of the wording might need to be fixed up to make it more encyclopaedic, e.g "he loved hunting". — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a presumption that military officers who reach 'star' rank generally also meet WP:BIO (though this isn't assured), and this seems to be the case here. Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Flag officers (generals and admirals) pretty defacto meet notability. Certainly far more so than minor league baseball players at the Class A level (3 below the majors) whom we have a slew of articles on. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nom Withdrawn (non admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational institutions in Sikkim

List of educational institutions in Sikkim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list, with only 2 entries. Seems like simple "see also" links would do the job of this article. There's also a template {{Universities in Sikkim}} that gets the job done, so there is no need for this list. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nav template takes you to this (and other articles in the series), no? -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Prince: Children of Gaia

As per WP:Bk this is not a notable book as it has not won a major literary award, has not made a significant contribution to an art form, and has no historically significance. Also links provided are 1) from the makers website, 2) a copy/pasted press release from the maker, and 3) a self-produced online copy of the book: all questionable under WP:SPSWatkinsley (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Demon Prince: Children of Gaia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An IP tried to nominate this but didn't finish and once again, nobody cared. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, they just couldn't move faster than you ;-) Watkinsley (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Pequannock Township High School. Consensus seems to be that there's insufficient coverage to warrant a separate article, but that there may be some useful information to incorporate into the high school's article. ~ mazca t/c 17:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pequannock Township Marching Band

Pequannock Township Marching Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An IP tried to nominate this but didn't finish, and nobody cared. Seems borderline notable, so I'm taking to AFD for consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:12, 7 June 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, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Balk

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

Disputed prod, rationale was: "Unverifiable, appears to be a hoax. No evidence that any of the sources cited exist". This article was created with nonexistent sources; the bogus sources have been removed and replaced by actual published sources, but it's debatable whether the new sources substantiate the article's contents. The reference Music And Emotion is available for searching via Amazon's "search inside" feature (link) and the book contains no reference to a Gregory Balk. Web searches have revealed no evidence that this individual exists. Suggest deletion as a hoax. Muchness (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More on this. The extension of the calculus from three to four dimensional Euclidian spaces is trivial. The extension to four-dimensional spaces of indefinite metric (needed for the theory of relativity) was accomplished a little under 100 years ago by Hermann Minkowski, Marcel Grossman and Albert Einstein. Spaces of infinite dimensions (Hilbert spaces) came into common use in the nineteen thirties. The hoax is betrayed by its weak maths and, of course, by its total lack of sources. Nice try but Obvious Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Just to inform, there does exist a mathematican by the name of gregory balk in the archives at Trinity college. I have no idea how much of the article is a hoax, the authors may have made the whole thing up, based it on some fact or of course it could have been a coincidence. But i'd advise some more research is needed before deletion as some parts may be based on truth. Although it does look quite unlikely, and as Xxanthippe said the weak maths seems a bit strange if they based it truthfully. James.o.flath (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No notability of the "gadgets" asserted in the article. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 17:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of gadgets from Totally Spies!

List of gadgets from Totally Spies! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wholly in-universe fanlist twiddling; no sourcing and no establishment of notability most likely on assumption that inherited notability should be enough. treelo radda 16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The gadget GLADIS is a computer but can also be consider a character in the series and before any deletion information about her/it should be moved to the main article or character list. -- Horkana (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, multiple editors agree that it's a clear hoax. Closing early per WP:SNOW (was tagged for speedy deletion). Jamie☆S93 21:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pineapple Day

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

Disputed prod, concern was: "lacks reliable 3rd party references". This article contains only self-published sources (two personal websites) and Google has revealed no evidence of a Pineapple Day on April 12. Suggest deletion as unverifiable and probable hoax. Muchness (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete . GW's keep doesn't address the facts of this article subject, and Spaceman7Spiff's argument that her theatre work is notable was refuted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie Compton

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

A losing x-factor contestant that has been writing her new album since 2005. Nothing else heard from her since. So is very WP:1E and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. If she releases an album or gets any non-trvial coverage, then there would be no reason not to restore it. Otterathome (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy-deleted WP:CSD#G7 by Tanthalas39. Non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tadtstrology

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

Unsupported neologism. No Ghits. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contested PROD. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natwain francis

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

This individual does no appear to meet notability guidelines. I can see no significant coverage in secondary sources. Majority of google hits seem to be social networking sites. BelovedFreak 14:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect to Mike Tyson. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desiree Washington

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

Deletion rationale:

1. WP:BLP1E—She was only a contestant in that beauty show, didn't win any other awards either (at least the article doesn't mention any other notable award that she won). So basically she is known only due to her being raped by Tyson. OneEvent bio.

2. The BLP isn't balanced:covers only negative aspects of her life. (Don't tell me to fix it; I couldn't find any RS discussing her other biographical details.) --PirateSmackKArrrr! 06:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The one event of this “one-event bio” was culturally quite significant. And “balance”, for the purposes of Wikipedia, is determined by what is available from “reliable sources”. —SlamDiego←T 08:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "culturally significant" incident (wait, what's 'culturally' significant about it?) is already in Mike Tyson's article and if the event is significant, and there is much content then make a separate article about the incident. Desiree's biography here is nothing but "She was a contestant, was raped by Tyson and Tyson was sentenced". Reliable sources are important, and in this case they are limited to covering the rape incident. What else about her do you think makes her notable other than the rape? --PirateSmackKArrrr! 08:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The rape brought very pronounced attention to a number of things, including the differences between being an able athlete or an economically successful member of an ethnic minority and being a proper rôle-model, and the relationships between men and women that prevailed in their shared community.
        Essentially, you're introducing standards here (got by a strained reading of actual policy), and want us either to argue that “Desiree Washington” does not fail your standards or to agree that it should be deleted. I don't feel any need to show that Desiree Washington or Madge Oberholtzer have any importance beyond being the sole legal victims of notorious crimes. I don't feel the need to show that Lee Harvey Oswald would be at all important without one event, nor to find “reliable sources” that talk about whatever fine things he did when he wasn't taking pot-shots at officials. —SlamDiego←T 09:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the incident is significant, (perhaps it deserves its own separate article, there is a lot of information of the incident that is missing from Washington's article) but the person who got raped is not notable. There is no detailed biographical coverage at Desiree Washington, just news about a rape incident and its court's findings. That's how WP:BLP puts it

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options.

The woman is otherwise non-notable, and I see no reason to have a negetive-ish BLP hanging around. As for "PoV pushing"-I didn't even know about this incident until yesterday when I read Tyson's article, and I don't think my views towards him are positive. --PirateSmackKArrrr! 12:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a separate article on the incident itself operationalizes as the “Keep and rename” proposed by Malik Shabazz below. Shabazz draws our attention to “Tawana Brawley rape allegations”, so let's look at that article. It offers biographical details about a living person (Ms Brawley), and does not offer the sort of balance that you have insisted should be present. (I remind everyone that WP:BLP is not simply about articles intended as biographies per se.)
    I don't see that it makes a whole lot of difference whether the article is named “Desiree Washington” and goes into considerably more detail about the rape, or is entitled “Michael Tyson rape of Desiree Washington” and retains the present level of biographical detail about Washington while adding more about the rape. —SlamDiego←T 01:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The beauty pagent comment is almost a red-herring. We don't normally have articles for victims of violent crimes, even committed by celebrities. Why should this one be different? eaolson (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. I know we normally don't relist an article with this many comments, but I really think that this could benefit from a few more eyes. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus , nobody seems to care. Might be a merge candidate? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steeplechase blackpool

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

The article claims some notability, however that is so specific that I doubt this passes the notability bar as an amusement park joy ride. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Passportguy (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Although merging all of the rollercoaster articles in the above mentioned section would be a viable option, I think because of the very large fanbase for these mentioned coasters and coasters in general worldwide, that each coaster should individually have an article dedicated to them. Also as this is the last of it's kind in existence and has 1,000's upon 1,000s of riders per year I personally think that makes it a noteworthy cause for Keep. I'd like to see other people's opinions if anyone else would like to comment ? I made this article as it was the only coaster in the list that did not have a dedicated page. Norms360 (talk) 22:11, 03 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. only keep was from article creator Valley2city‽ 16:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinu Tanaka

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

Non-notable minor actor, credits in the article even include one film where the scene in whichn she played was cut. Passportguy (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "credits in the article even include one film where the scene in whichn[sic] she played was cut." Kinda says it all... Anyway, she was cut from one movie and an extra in another. The only info provided on IMDB is from her own resumé which is definitely not a third party, especially as the whole thing reads as a promotional piece. Utterly fails WP:ENT - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." ~ Amory (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - "everything appears to be in order. The format is clear and standard. Being an extra is notable when the actor is in several scenes and easy recognizible. Being the only minority in the film, the actor is clearly notable. The films mentioned (one still in production and the other not yet released) will be credited roles for this actor. The role were significant to the actor becuase of the numerous scenes the actor is in spite of being an extra. At a prescreening of one of the films, it is believe that actor's scene MAY have been deleted but will not know for sure until release. IMBD has been used for many actors to verify roles, this actor should be given the same courtesy." KinuLe (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2009 Updated (UTC)
  • Delete. Being an extra in 2 films isn't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per bio. Eusebeus (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being an extra is notable when you see how many times this extra was in this particular film. She was noted as a FEATURED Extra. That is a big deal! KinuLe (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is an up and coming actress and that you'll be working with Biddle Productions (Ray Biddle) in Spokane WA in the near future. Definately as keeper! She will be having speaking role in this film. Context was quoted by Ray Biddle but he had trouble logining on to post comment. Once he can, he will tell you the same thing! KinuLe (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opened per request. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 15 June 2009 (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 Keep as per consensus and the absence (after two weeks) of calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Weems

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

Please see the related nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia: The Secrets of a "Christian" Terrorist State‎ for his book. Considering that the book does not appear notable, there is not much of a claim to notability here. The disbarment mentioned was not covered in the media, and the sources are just the court records themselves. There is also no significant media coverage of his work, besides a couple of obituaries in Turkish news and other passing references. He just seems to be mentioned by either pro-Turkish or pro-Armenian niche blogs or interest groups, mostly for his book. Dominic·t 13:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weems is a denier of the Armenian Genocide. This man is widely read in Turkey and in Turkish, where readers are told that he was an American JUDGE and where a government ministry promotes his work as valid history. I recently found a footnote to his work in a paper on Christian terrorism written by a student at an American university. I think Wikipedia can play a role here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.50 (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if his book was widely read and commented on in Turkey. The turks.us anf tukish.times sites are a start, but It would be much better to have something more. As for the disbarment, it would help to have some secondary sources also. This is controversial negative territory, though no longer BLP, and the sourcing should be as solid as possible.DGG (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you saying "keep if..."? If I had any evidence that the book was widely read and commented on, I might want to keep it too, but I don't. Do you? In fact, the book appears to have been self-published. The publisher, St. John Press, no longer has a website, and the Internet Archive shows that its former website was devoted solely to Weems and his one book, which is all it ever published. [19] Dominic·t 02:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, news + books. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain what those actually demonstrate? You have two news articles; one is a trivial passing mention, and a single article on his book from what doesn't appear to be a major Turkish newspaper (?). At Google Books, you have a couple of book reviews and a couple more passing references. This is, after all, a biography, and you haven't linked to any secondary sources that discuss Samuel Weems as a topic; I don't see how it's even possible to create a biography without original research. Dominic·t 06:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 03:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) NW (Talk) 21:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Davies (politician)

Peter Davies (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local politician (city mayor). No indication that he meets the criteria of WP:BIO for politicians (national office or significant national coverage). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safe rides unlimited

Safe rides unlimited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Restoring the speedied article and taking to AfD; see my talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 11:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 11:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Delete It seems like a great program, but the criterion for having an article on Wikipedia is notability, based on whether it has received coverage by independent and reliable sources. I don't see anything, either on the group's website, or even a search [21] that shows that articles have been written about it. It seems like a no-brainer for someone there to call the New York Times. It's possible that the group has more business than it has the capacity to handle, and that it isn't seeking media attention; or it's possible that nobody involved in SRI knows anything about public relations. All I can say is, you have to attract notice first, and write an article second, not the other way around. Mandsford (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, It seems like a great program, but google news search shows no hits and a google web search shows 80+ hits. All of the web hits seem to be either community profiles, websites or press releases. There is nothing to show independent 3rd party coverage of the company to satisfy general notability guidelines. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optical modulators using semiconductor nano-structures

Optical modulators using semiconductor nano-structures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural AfD. Was prodded under "Fork of multiple article". I'm neutral, but prodding would remove a lot of potential mergable material. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed: No argument is found here or on the article talk page for why this article should be deleted. The connection to nanostructures is not well presented, but otherwise the article seems OK. Brews ohare (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: The author removed the AfD notice a day or so ago, I've now restored it.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Headbomb, removing the AfD notice may cast a bad light on this article or the user that created the article, but he (or she) may be new. In any case, I would need more information concerning the deletion, or keep, of this article. I don't see content forking, or POV forking, at first glance and this appears to be a very good article. I asked you some questions on the article's talk page, if you don't mind. Danke schön! спасибо! Ti-30X (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, when I wrote my "inquiry" in the article talk page I didn't save the page before I closed the window. Well, I can address my concerns here. I am wondering if the the same user created three different artiles with three different ID's. ? Where or what is the content fork, or POV fork related to this article? Danke schön! спасибо! Thanks! Ti-30X (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Not sure anyone really knows what to do with this, but after 3 weeks there is certainly no consensus to delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enhancement or quenching of QD, Q-wire and QW radiations

Enhancement or quenching of QD, Q-wire and QW radiations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural AfD. Was prodded under "No context/OR ". I'm neutral, but prodding would remove a lot of potential mergable material. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge if there is a suitable target (without context I can't work out what such a target would be) and it isn't original research. I wont stand in the way of a delete if that is consensus though. If kept, this article needs an introduction writing and wikification. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a whie  : The intro sentence is a tautology( "quenching is a way to quench") , or maybe a fancy was to explain that QW is an abbr. for quantum well but if the someone can develop the article it may have merit. I guess you could move it to a talk page in the mean time but I wouldn't throw it out until authors have some time to make it useful. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The tautology was introduced in my quick attempt to wikify the article. I edited the article to (hopefully) remove the tautology. Cheers Boghog2 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original author has shown no interest in the article beyond the first posting. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
They however in no way establish notability. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Very strong keep. I agree that the article is difficult to understand, because the contributor is super, extra, hyper specialist; however with an WP:AGF interest in creating an encyclopaedic entry on new class of light sources. The challenge of Wikipedians is then to recognize that a new article, properly referenced with three peer-ref journal entries, has the potential to stay in this project to "record the knowledge of the world". We could perhaps help to make the article accessible to ordinary people, perhaps we could improve it, but, Oh no, first we PROD it, and then AfD it, mostly because lack of insight. This is a sad story. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:  : Well, we can't do peer review on original hypotheses but we do need to do a patent nonsense review and certainly a preponderance of eloquent jargon could be generated by an automated nonsense generator ( as long as it follows grammar rules). Someone needs to pass judgment on semantics- the article has to say something.

So, if you just want to make a list of ways to make small things emit more light based on details of their smallness fine but an article that says that making them brighter makes them brighter still doesn't help an interested reader get brighter :) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak deleteIf it is based on three good published sources it is not OR. How important it may be I cannot tell. Scopus shows very few articles referring to those 3, though they only 2008. Our best practice with specific scientific work of this wsort would be to wait until there were more citations or some indication of obvious importance. DGG (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and merge where possible) The page does not have a suitable subject for an encyclopedic article. It basically reviews some recent research on how certain properties of certain constructs of a certain material depend on various factors. By itself this is not a notable subject. The material in this article can possibly be merged in to various other articles with the most likely candidates being: ZnO, quantum dot, quantum wire and quantum well. The article itself should be deleted since it is not a plausible redirect to any other article, but not before any salvageable material has been salvaged. (TimothyRias (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete G12: as indicated correctly in the last keep (!), this is a copyvio from a published article. Articles where the whole history contains the copyvio should be speedy deleted, not cleaned up. Fram (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Energy transfer between semiconductor nanostructure

Energy transfer between semiconductor nanostructure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural AfD. Was prodded under "OR/Potential copyvio". I'm neutral, but prodding would remove a lot of potential mergable material. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:15, 7 June 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, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuilding (professional sports)

Rebuilding (professional sports) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is more like a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia. I suggest Wiktionary is more suitable for this type of thing. Trevor Marron (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note that this is the first article written by a relatively new editor. Most of us never heard of "Articles for deletion" until we got the invitation on our talk page. Bear in mind that any article should have sources so that a statement can be backed up (for example, Ken Griffey Jr's page has 39 footnotes). There is no such thing in Wikipedia as "everybody knows that". Even so, I don't think that this is a good topic for an article -- the topic is too narrow and too broad at the same time. Rebuilding can occur in any organization, and pro sports teams aren't the only entities that clean house and do a wholesale replacement of personnel -- it happens after elections all over the world. At the same time, it's difficult to find a notable example of a sports franchise that did rebuilding, since the story is always the same -- they were losing, they rebuilt and started winning (or they were still losing, so they kept rebuilding). If people start saying "delete", don't take the comments personally. We've all been booed before. Mandsford (talk) 14:07, 7 June 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, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as G4. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of lawyers

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

Contested prod. I can't see that a list like this could be encyclopedic, and it's potentially never ending. Deadly∀ssassin 10:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4 - the names may be different in this list but the principle is exactly the same as in the previous deletion debate. No need to have the discussion all over again. JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lawyers? Delete with extreme prejudice.... - But seriously, Delete, it is simply an indiscriminate list of unverified names that could go on forever. And Wikipedia is not a collector of indiscriminate information. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absent Elk

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

Contested prod. No vote. Ryan Delaney talk 00:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 10:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was "Speedy keep" by Trevor Marron (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Non-admin closure.[reply]

"The Sorts"

I found this article whilst patrolling new pages and found it tagged for Speedy Deletion. I changed tag from speedy to AFD, Speedy nomination was for A7 - Notability. I found a few secondary references but is the band notable enough for an article? I am not sure one way or the other but am hovering towards Delete, so please discuss. Trevor Marron (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of names of the official languages of the European Union in the official languages

List of names of the official languages of the European Union in the official languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP not a dictionary, not an indiscriminate collection of information. F (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Don't Dance

Baby Don't Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:SONG. Withdrawn single release only. Never available to the public, no chart performance, no awards Paul75 (talk) 09:55, 7 June 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, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 8

AfDs for this article:
Windows 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article likely violates WP:CRYSTAL, and relies on inappropriate sources - one which discuss a different version of Windows and another which is a job advert. As a result, the article is very short, largely unverified and reads somewhat like a job description. Colds7ream (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Stefanianna Christopherson

Indira Stefanianna Christopherson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

May fail WP:N in that the actress only played (or, more properly, voice-acted) a single notable role in a single series for a single season. What other roles she played seem to have been exceedingly minor (one show lasted 13 performances, one may have only been a one-shot of the others had a limited run from all appearances, and the third (and final one I could find) was an improv show run in the basement of a theatre (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/02/theater/where-audiences-participate-in-improvisional-comedy.html?scp=1&sq=where%20audiences%20participate%20in%20improvisational%20comedy&st=cse). Though the factual nature of the article is not in question, the ability to expand beyond a stub is questionable. While I am willing to give this one some time, the inability to dig up substantial source material beyond this one notable factoid from any place but the subject's personal website also suggest that qualification under WP:BLP may be questionable as well. I do not doubt that she had this one role, but I can't confirm anything else about her (even a DoB). Tyrenon (talk) 08:56, 7 June 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, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was '. Sorry, did this in the wrong order. Closing as I've already deleted it. GedUK  15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental economics/Comments

Experimental economics/Comments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Okay, first, what I am really seeking to have deleted is a bit of weirdness, Talk:Experimental economics/Comments. It doesn't (yet) have an article associated with it. It does not meet the formal tests which would qualify it for nomination for Speedy Deletion, but it's a misguided kludge. It's essentially a brief essay created by an anon to argue that “This page [presumably the not-yet-extant article] needs to engage with critiques of the ontological and epistemological presuppositions of experimental economics.” SlamDiego←T 08:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Non-notable article. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scavenger's Daughter (band)

Scavenger's Daughter (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about band might not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Mecham

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

Insufficiently notable. Haven't been able to find any supporting sources, which ordinarily shouldn't be hard for Australian international netball players. – Liveste (talk • edits) 07:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources reliable or unreliable, in-depth or trivial, exist to establish notability or even verify the article. Note that the author has made no other contributions except for posting the same article on his userpage. Drawn Some (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Cooper

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

Declined prod. Although the article claims "plays for the Minnesota Vikings" there have been no appearances. This fails the standard notability guidelines at WP:ATHLETE: "competed at the fully professional level of a sport". As a college player he is not particularly notable (no awards, championships etc). No prejudice to recreating the article if he ever competes. Tassedethe (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't know why I'm bothering to reply to a post that uses polemics like "American exceptionalism", but did you consider that there might be a difference because the United States is more than three times as populous as the other Anglophone countries combined? Or that maybe there is an "exception" for the United States because collegiate sports are inherently more significant there? Those other projects are free to do whatever they want, even if that means they ignore the notability guidelines I suppose. And that article's copyright is cited as The Financial Times. Strikehold (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The copyright is with the Financial Times, because it runs a wire service for minor publications such as University Wire. That's totally different from an article being published in the actual Financial Times newspaper. The rest of your comments just underline the American exceptionalism argument. "Three times as populous as the other anglophone countries combined" - well even if that's true (how about India, Pakistan, South Africa, the Phillipines etc.?) this is an encyclopedia about the whole world (or universe to be pedantic), so there's certainly no reason to bias our coverage towards North American sports, rather than football and cricket, which are played in countries with much larger populations. And "collegiate sports are inherently more significant there"? "Inherently more significant" is precisely the language of American exceptionalism. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm aware, university sports are taken more seriously in the United States than other countries. I'm not sure how Wikipedia acknowledging this can possibly be a problem. matt91486 (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, if it is copyrighted by the Financial Times, and distributed through their own wire service, it seems accurate to attribute it as such. If it was copyrighted by Reuters or AP or a newspaper, I would have attributed it as such. English isn't the primary language in India, Pakistan, South Africa, or the Philippines. Collegiate sports are more significant in the United States than they are in other countries; that is a fact, not opinion. And since I guess we're making generalizations about each other's arguments: that is "precisely the language of" anti-Americanism. Strikehold (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not Cooper meets WP:ATHLETE is entirely a non-issue if he meets WP:GNG—WP:ATHLETE is an additional criteria and makes notability easier, not harder. You cannot delete based on not meeting it, but rather only on the more stringent WP:BIO (which WP:GNG addresses). I believe he does, in spades, due to the extensive media coverage I provided above. Aside from that, disregarding the fact that many, if not most, American college football and basketball players are far more notable (by any measure other than paycheck) than professional lacrosse, Aussie rules footballers, Gaelic footballers, even ice hockey players, and competitors in world championship events like pool and poker, and many Olympians would be nonsensical. 81.96.65.76 you are willing to exempt a semi-professional English footballer who does not meet WP:ATHLETE and may even fail WP:GNG, but on the other hand you are basically saying that almost no American college athletes should be notable. That is contradictory, and well, I'd say that is English exceptionalism or non-American exceptionalism (i.e. all rules apply to the U.S. but not necessarily anywhere else). What are your feelings, then, on American college soccer players? There is no pyramid system there and colleges provide the majority of players to the professional American soccer leagues like the MLS. Strikehold (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Philip Caputo. Cirt (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Caputo

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

Googled the name but was unable to locate any information on him. Either this is page is nonsense, or he is completely non-notable IndulgentReader (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DraXsiS

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

Fails WP:BAND. A google search for notability brings back no significant hits. Zero hits on google news. Article has no references. The band is unsigned and haven't released any albums on any major labels. -- Darth Mike (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I think it's unbecoming of any editor, let alone an administrator, to call for deletion of an article, let alone speedy deletion, without reading the article properly. If someone can take the time to write an article then the least courtesy that we can pay is to take the time to read it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per A7. Very little sourcing on Google, no evidence given that verifiable sourcing might exist offline. I just declined a speedy tag because of this existing AfD, but I really don't see any grounds for keeping it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not speedy delete. The article claims more than one album released, and determining whether the label is important enough for that to pass WP:MUSIC criterion 5 requires examination of sources, so needs scrutiny at AfD rather than unilateral deletion. On looking through the Google web results I can't see anything that looks to me, as a non-expert in this field, to be an independent reliable source, and Google News finds nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per SarekOfVulcan. I was hoping this link would provide some evidence of significance, but was sorely disappointed. :( --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Scaife

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

Second place getter in the reality program New Zealand's Next Top Model. The article on the winner of the program, Christobelle Grierson-Ryrie, is also nominated for deletion although the winner is clearly significantly more notable than the second place getter. The article on Scaife is currently unsourced, and I doubt that there will ever be reliable third-party sources which do more than certify her position on this program, which makes the article fail WP:ONEEVENT gadfium 05:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina–Cyprus relations

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

another random combination noting that Cyprus has a non resident ambassador in a different continent. There are 2 bilateral agreements which don't seem to be covered at all in the media. otherwise coverage is only multilateral and sport [27]. There's a naming of an Argentinian general to oversee Cyprus operations [28] but I don't think this is the basis of notable relations (was his nationality relevant to the selection?). In 2006, Argentina's David Nalbandian played Cyprus' Marcos Baghdatis, which I know of at least 1 editor would think this helps establish notability and worthy of inclusion, clearly not. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why bother? I'm sure Docu will happily ignore any and all arguments that aren't on the side of "keep", so I don't see the point of devoting serious time to a rationale here. Badger Drink (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is, in fact, "making a point" - on that, I am guilty as charged - but can you please indicate where I am "disrupting Wikipedia"? Thank you most handlessly in advance for your tiresome efforts towards resolving this pressing query of mine. Badger Drink (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well 90% of these nominated articles were created by a now banned editor. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and many of them get kept, and by many different admins. That tells us even more about the need to look at each one carefully. DGG (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See this comment for a possible explanation, scroll down to see the actual comment. Placing the rescue tag on an article calls the "squad" to "swarm" the AfD discussion. Drawn Some (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City of Titusville Student Awards Ceremony

City of Titusville Student Awards Ceremony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local awards ceremony. MBisanz talk 04:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Serbia relations

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

non resident embassies, and a real lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, [29] only multilateral and of course football like this friendly match they played last year. the only specific article I could find is this but hardly the basis of notable relations to pay a firm 1 million euro to do a study. As of 2005, Serbian foreign ministry states no bilateral agreements in force, only 1 in draft form. this is quite unusual for 2 European countries not to have any sort of agreements. LibStar (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why bother? I'm sure Docu will happily ignore any and all arguments that aren't on the side of "keep", so I see any and all time I invest towards coming up with a rationale here to be time wasted. Badger Drink (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in this. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A now banned user created 90% of these non notable stubs. LibStar (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes unlike USA-Cuba which has no formal relations but lots of media coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this soccer rivalry notable on the basis of the 1 friendly match I found? how many matches have these 2 countries since Serbia became a separate state in 2006? this is nothing like notable soccer rivalries like England-Germany, Peru-Chile, Argentina-Brazil just to name a few. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking, right? To suggest that football matches constitute notability of this article topic as well? Why are you even ON Wikipedia? --BlueSquadronRaven 03:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes what sporting rivalries have to do with relations between nation states? we can cover these in separate articles like this: Chile and Peru football rivalry not in these bilateral ones. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While this particular relationship does not appear to be notable, I stand by my original claims. Evidence of notable bilateral relations include, but are not limited to, soccer rivalries, recalled ministers, and multi-lateral relations. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blestenation

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

Has two notable nembers but notability isn't inherited. Sources don't cut it. I removed a false claim that they are signed to Geffen. And for God's sake, how hard is it to fill out the "background" field properly?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:15, 7 June 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, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete , referenced only to blogs. fintler argues it meets some arbitrary standard of vent importance without justifying that standard, and his cited source is a blog. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HigherEdCamp

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

Previously speedied for no assertion of notability. Two sentence (now sourced) stub that still does not assert notability. Of the four sources, three are blog entries, one is behind a paywall, none are WP:RS. - 2 ... says you, says me 04:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Santerineross

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE with flying colours -- only one seemingly reliable (non blog/zine subject-controlled) source. Other sources do not refer to him or deal with him in a substantive fashion. His potential claim to fame is his single publication -- if that is notable it is in its own right and any notability is not transferable to him. The article is a nightmare -- full of unsourced claims and quotes in clear violation of BLP policy Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • SpeedyStrong keep - article badly needs cleanup (which I promised to provide when I contested the prod less than 24 hours ago), but that is not a valid criteria for deletion. Subject easily passes WP:GNG with tons of (genre-specific) reliable source coverage - many of these sources are already listed in the article (not every source in the article is good, but certainly not every one is bad either). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)s[reply]
Speedy on the grounds of what? Clicking through the links finds many sources do not mention the subject and others are trivial coverage. Still more are websites and zines --- i cannot see that notability under WP:CREATIVE allows for such a low bar. My claim for deletion is based on lack of notability, not for the article's terrible shape. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy on the grounds that it already has enough sources to establish notability based on WP:GNG (a subject does not have to meet WP:CREATIVE to be notable). If were basing it only on CREATIVE it would just be a regular keep on the "significant critical attention" bullet point and possibly others. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not grounds for speedy keep. There are five grounds: 1:"No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion" 2: "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption" 3: "The nominator is banned 4: "The page is a policy or guideline and 5:"The article is currently linked from the Main Page." Which of these are you claiming to be applicable; its not clear to me. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are the grounds for closing an AfD as "speedy keep," which is not the same thing as offering an opinion. People often !vote "speedy keep" when they think a case is very clear cut, but since you take exception I will just change it to "strong keep." --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough --- speedy to me normally means the editor wants to close the AfD. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion - I will avoid using the term in the future. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me, speedy would mean it meets the requirements for speedy deletion such as being a hoax or patent nonsense. For speedy to refer to keep it would have to be like someone nominating Margaret Thatcher or Spain or Sun for deletion. Strong just means someone is over-excited. Weak just means they know they're voting the wrong way but they like it or don't like it. Drawn Some (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come now --- I've used weak keep and weak delete even for things I don't much like. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The More I See

The More I See (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NM: unsigned, only notable member is the former live guitarist for The Prodigy, way below notability standards. Sceptre (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Yongchuan

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

This was prodded as "non-notable". This might be true, but as he was the leader of a US student organisation of pro-democracy Chinese students who got widely quoted in the media, I prefer a discussion at AfD. Fences and windows (talk) 02:56, 7 June 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, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Les Fleur

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

I can't find any reliable G-hits on this. Article doesn't claim it charted, can't find any evidence it charted... fails WP:MUSIC. [flaminglawyer] 02:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brass-hop

Brass-hop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems a very fringy genre--practically all the Google hits are related to the one 1997 album by the one band, Coolbone (a band without an article, even as Cool Bone). Leave out the band's name and you get this--and among those results I can't see any in-depth discussion that would add up to a decent Wikipedia article. As RHaworth used to say, "Is it notable?" Drmies (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete . Unreferenced BLP. Even the single keep says he's probably not more than marginal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Khan

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

Limited notability. Looks like an up-and coming actor, but not yet encyclopedic. gordonrox24 (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable bit part actor and stuntman. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm -- not sure if someone can be notable for doing many non-notable things. The man obviously has a good resume as a stuntman/fighter etc but is he notable as one? I tend to think no, but others may disagree. I think the interwiking and wikilinks issue isn't relevant to the subject's notability in any way however. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (A7) by Mifter. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 02:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frendu

Frendu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 01:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChiRunning

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

Some time ago I nominated this page for G11. Someone offered to fix it and so the db tag was removed. Despite some work, it never stopped looking like a press release. However, the true issue is that no one who has worked in this page has been able to find any neutral third-party references. A quick Google search did not turn up anything beyond press releases, advertisements, and product reviews. None of those can establish notability. Therefore I have come to the conclusion that no amount of work can save this article without reliable sources to back the claims and statements. That is why I am calling for this article to be deleted. Ipatrol (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Ipatrol, here's 163 news references for you to improve the article with:[37]. Fences&Windows 21:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cabin

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

A PROD tag was removed without addressing the situation; films not yet in production do not meet WP:NFF, there are no reliable sources, and notability is neither asserted nor seemingly present. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete (A7) by User:Geogre, non-admin closure A new name 2008 (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Charan Newton

Mark Charan Newton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a vanity article. There is no evidence that the author is notable. The article is not linked to from anywhere else on WP. The references are all to the blogs (mostly to the author's blog). Fashionslide (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a newly published author with no sources covering him. I found some press releases, and there is coverage in blogs, but that's all. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Edwyn Burnaby (1798–1867) as possible search term and due to concerns with recreation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Salisbury

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

non-notable. Queen Elizabeth has millions of ancestors, and notability is not inherited, so it shouldn't go the other direction either. This person is completely irrelevant to history except for some odd random chance ending up with a descendant two centuiries later becoming Queen. This AfD follows a declined PROD. Agricolae (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Grayson

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

does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) Xsmasher (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FastPak for Java

FastPak for Java (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a software product that has not received any significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. As search for sourcing turns up very little. The most substantial was this announcement for version 3 of the product. However, it is essentially a press release and not independent of the subject. Whpq (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Shaikh

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

Contested prod. Article is an advertisement for Shaikh and his series of video lectures/organization. No reliable sources provided and I could not find anything outside of facebook/myspace/linkedin profiles. TNXMan 11:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Small Case

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

Originally proposed for deletion and seconded with the rationale "Non-notable film; a Google search for "the small case film" returns no relevant hits. It appears that there are no sources for this article beyond the subject's homepage." Author deleted proposed deletion templates, so I am bringing up a full discussion. BassoProfundo (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think think could be speedied as copyvio, hoax or blatant advertising, take your pick. But delete it all the same. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:NFF in all ways. No coverage. No press. Nothing found but the film's website and a couple blogs. If actually produced, it will likely be a terrific article... but with a 2011 projected release date for an unmade film? This article is too soon. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G12 by TexasAndroid (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 03:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Castellers de Vilafranca

Castellers de Vilafranca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Just one big advertisement. Written by User:Castellersvilafranca. The page is also a big copyvio of the official website so it may be a G12. Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WeDigTV

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

No available outside references beyond (paid?) media links. No recent references at all (the site appears to have been dead for the past two years and so doesn't even advertise). Inappropriate content for Wikipedia, and the article's tone would need serious improvement if it were to stay. Wlwwybrn (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kamar Ali Darvesh

Kamar Ali Darvesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod deleted so afd made: lack of any citation and notability issues--  Rmzadeh  ►  07:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete , fails WP:MUSIC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Slick

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

Prod removed, thus listed here : the article doe not cover a notable person, the only citations are to the persons facebook and myspace. Rmzadeh (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article does cover a notable person (a regionally known musician), but was constructed in a somewhat slapdash fashion. If I edit it to include proper citations, thus proving notability, can deletion be avoided? I have already begun this by updating the introductory paragraph. Full disclosure: I am not the primary author of the original article, but I know a great deal about the subject of the article. I know enough about Wikipedia to bring this article in line with Wiki practices, but I apologize in advance for my lack of practical experience with those practices. I am reading the relevant articles and trying to learn, and any suggestions would be appreciated.Djwidmayer (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It was pretty funny. Since there was no weigh-ins since the relist last week I'm just going to accept the unanimous deletes all from a fortnight ago. Valley2city‽ 05:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Molecular Man

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

Unnotable [non-recurring] sketch from one SNL episode. No citation in 2 years of any recognition the sketch has received. Clearly not a notable topic. Note also redirect Moleculo. TheHYPO (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ÷seresin 02:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Fellas

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

Non-notable local event: a single comedy show. Prod contested by article creator in 2008. Jfire (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe that Tiernan (sp?) and Moran have toured together subsequently (like last night in Boston) under this name. SGGH ping! 14:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been substantially updated (more than doubled in size) since being nominated, and there are three sources for coverage of the show. While one of the sources is not accessible any longer unless you want to pay for it, the other two offer sufficient coverage to barely scrape through the notability requirements. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @844  ·  19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Churches in Kumanovo

Churches in Kumanovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Trivial list of churches in a city in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, with absolutely no criteria for inclusion or exclusion; would be deletable under CSD#A1 as a very short article with no context — I had to click through some links to discover where Kumanovo was, and the entire article minus the AFD tag is 246 bytes — if it weren't tagged (probably wrongly) as a disambiguation page. It's not disambiguating, since none of the articles have the same title. In conclusion: if you treat it as a disambiguation page, it's useless, and if you treat it as a standard list, it's likewise unacceptable. Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete . No real argument to keep, in the face of the argument that it is unreferenceable. The single argument to keep doesn't address this, but instead extols the subject's virtues. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taijiquan journal

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

I'm not sure of what quality this article was in when it was prodded (and then deleted) in June 2008, but as far as the shape the article is in now, well, the article is written well, but a Google search only turns up links to blogs and LinkedIn pages. Even the only inline citation in the article leads to a page that only mentions the magazine's name in passing. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello--I posted this magazine as it has been very influential in the field of taijiquan and is in numerous public and school library collections. The content of the print magazine and of the online editions has a high reputation for thoroughness and scholarly standards (this is often rare in martial arts publications). Thus, it seems that the magazine should be listed, as it serves as a good source for student and professional research and information. I've gone through and tweaked the posting to try to meet Wikipedia standards better.Taiji19 (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taijiquan is the name of the activity itself, as well as the particular magazine in this article. People who practice taiji/taijiquan/tai chi/t'ai chi ch'uan love the activity named taiji and numbers of them use that word (means "supreme ultimate") as part of screen names. Obviously, a magazine about the topic would be, nay, SHOULD be named after that topic. (See, for example Yoga Journal, and see how maybe someone might use "yoga54" as their handle.) If there are suggestions for improving the article, please suggest, but please don't assume anything here about names!Taiji19 (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dhapodkar

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

Non-notable, very little context, probably fails WP:BIO if it falls under that. Sable232 (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. It's a real place and its existence has been confirmed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Li Curt

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

Me and User:Passportguy has been having a long discussion about small hamlets on the talkpage. This is a part of the swiss town Poschiavo and some kind of Poschiavo south station at the Bernina. But is it notable enough for a article itself? I don't think so. About 10 hamlet articles in the same area has been redirect to the closest real town or simply to Val di Campo or Val di Poschiavo. Highest Heights (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I and Hightest Heights discussed, I would say that this one just barely passes the notability mark as having a station named after it. However I agree that it is definately not the most notable place on earth. Passportguy (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read that argument, but I still think it's separate and distinct enough from Poschaivo to be a separate population center. Switzerland is different than, say, the US in that they there are distinctions of villages even though they might be really close or even adjoining to a larger population center.--Oakshade (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CrossFTP Server

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

Deleted by PROD a few weeks ago. Recreated complete with old dated templates on it. No indication of notability. No independent references. Hardly any RS coverage in Google. Author seems to be a single purpose account promoting this product. Likely a COI as the author has uploaded images of the software claiming to be the copyright owner (e.g. File:Crossftp logo.jpg). See also CrossFTP, which is the corresponding client software. DanielRigal (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is weird. Somebody cares enough to recreate this article but nobody cares enough to vote either way on whether it should be kept. I am going to chuck a couple more delsorts on it. I don't know what happens if it still gets no votes. Perhaps it should be treated as an uncontested PROD? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, possibly merge with CrossFTP. The only three sources I could dig up don't seem to establish standalone notability:
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~suriya/papers/tr-08-38.pdf (mainly page 10)
http://www.tecchannel.de/server/news/1735532/plattformunabhaengig_crossftp_server_107/ (English translation by Google)
http://www.computerra.ru/gid/rtfm/program/287899/ (English translation by Google) — Rankiri (talk) 16:31, 6 June 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) 00:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Beer

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

Non notable single, didn't chart, no sources. I would have redirected, but there's also a Tiny Toon Adventures episode with this name (you know, the one where Plucky, Hamton and Buster "kill" themselves by getting drunk and driving a car off a cliff… I am not making this up!). Given that neither venture is individually notable, I can't see a dab being useful, so I'm going with deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol...yall always wanna delete hip hop shit, classic hip hop albums and songs never have more than a few paragraphs with only a few exceptions (36 chambers, enta da stage) while rock albums and songs routinely have long ass pages.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Clear consensus. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mugen Puchipuchi

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

Article appears to be about a non-notable toy. No notability has been asserted. — Dædαlus Contribs 20:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Apparently this toy won an award from the Japan Toy Association[42], but I have no idea whether that is the sort of award that would confer notability. The references given in the article don't look like reliable sources. Searching for the Japanese name[43][44][45] shows either mega-notability or that the name of this toy is a common phrase in Japanese - I hope a Japanese-reading editor can tell us which. And, btw, where can I get this in the UK? I just love popping bubble-wrap (doesn't everyone?) so it would be great to have a reusable version. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This (a link I found through Google News) indicates that they've sold over 2.5 million of the original and another 1.8 million of the edamame version. This says they sold 2 million in the first six months. There are also articles in the major newspapers (Asahi Shimbun, Mainichi Shimbun, Yomiuri Shimbun) available as sources through Google News. I've seen it covered on presumably third-party TV shows like Waratte Iitomo. Dekimasuよ! 02:12, 5 June 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, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Scoda

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

Mayor of a community of 14,000 people. Not to say that mayors of such communities can't be notable (we wouldn't delete Bill Clinton's article if he became a smalltown mayor!), but this guy demonstrates no evidence of notability for other reasons — even impressive high school sports coaches aren't generally notable. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If so, it was under a different name. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete . Notability not established. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Lightspeed

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

Episode lacks stand-alone notability. While I admit that it is the first "Lightspeed Rescue" episode, I don't see where this episode is notable beyond describing the series. Certainly not on the level of, for instance, "Day of the Dumpster" or "Countdown to Destruction", amongst the very few episodes that do have articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alix Smith

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

An artist with public showings, and the relevant art pages blurbs. Generally fails WP:CREATIVE though. Habanero-tan (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good sourcing. first time I've heard Art Review and NYT articles described as blurbs--two NYT full articles!!-- If one is going to say such things, then no artist has sources. DGG (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different Beat

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

WP:CRYSTAL. No evidence that album will be released anytime soon. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants merchandise#LEGO_SpongeBob. ÷seresin 02:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lego SpongeBob SquarePants

Lego SpongeBob SquarePants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

OK, these LEGO toys exist - the link to the LEGO website and the online toystore proves that. But in what way are they notable? No references to indicate notability, article doesn't give any evidence of notability, or even make a "these are notable" statement. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Do Not Delete This line is important and notable information just like any other Lego line or pages on Wikipedia. By 'Deleting' Lego SpongeBob SquarePants when it is still growing. Means that all the other Lego lines on Wikipedia must be 'Deleted' also. Such as Lego Harry Potter, Lego Star Wars, Lego Space, Lego Mindstorms, Lego Castle, Lego Trains, Lego Power Miners, Lego Agents, Lego Town, and Lego Video Games etc. It is not fair to keep other Lego themes up and delete another ones. No matter how big or small the information. Again it is a Lego theme that is growing like Lego Star Wars, Lego Space and Lego Mindstorms. GoTLG
Well, that's a cracking example of the all or nothing argument. Leave the other stuff aside for a moment. Demonstrate the notability of this article. Why is it notable, bearing in mind that notability is not inherent, and just because LEGO is notable (no argument about that), every single product ever made by Lego is not notable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 3 June 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, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Mai

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

Non-notable adult model. Fails both WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:PORNBIO as neither of the criteria can be verified by reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plan B Synthesizers

Plan B Synthesizers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rather dubiously referenced article about a company with no particular apparent significance. The current article is a lengthy opinion piece, that if it were about a living person would undoubtedly be speedy-deleted as an attack page; the version prior to the recent expansion (created by User:PlanBguy, FWIW) is unreferenced and without even the vaguest assertion or indication of notability.
Disclosure: this AFD was prompted by a (gasp) post at a BADSITE (fetches the smelling salts). Just because you don't like the person saying something, doesn't mean they're wrong.  – iridescent 20:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles should be moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Synthesizer_manufacturing_companies.
A wider range of candidates are covered in industry magazines like Electronic Musician (http://emusician.com/elecinstruments/emusic_analog_renaissance/) or Sound-On-Sound (http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr09/articles/goingmodular.htm). 209.190.181.178 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 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, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Zombie

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

Non-notable, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to meet the criteria outlined in WP:WEB. — Rankiri (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scunt

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

Contested prod for a non notable organisation. The 'references' provided are not reliable sources and at least one, the claimed Stephen Fry discussion, is a misrepresentation. Despite searching, I coud find no sources to provide verification or notability. Nuttah (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I am from the UK and I have never heard of it. The references are useless, and in one case blatantly disingenuous. Googling gives me no hope that it has a high profile, or much of a profile at all. I find much of it suspicious. Nothing in Google News to corroborate the alleged spat with Morrissey[46], for example. What does circulation mean when it is a website not a magazine? 19 employees financed from selling T-Shirts?[47] I strongly suspect not! This seems to be a highly fictionalised account written by an author who registered solely to create the article and has not been seen since. I have tagged it as disputed. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. لennavecia 20:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Taylor (composer)

Robert Taylor (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable composer? The name is common, so it's difficult to search for, but this article has been here for years with no improvement and no reliable sources. Attempts to search for the subject name plus his works come up with nothing except a lot of Wikipedia mirrors. Nothing in Google News for the combination of composer and work. The history of the article indicates that there was apparently a previous deletion discussion in 2003, but the resolution was to keep. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks non-notable to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I would prefer to be able to keep an article which has been on Wikipedia for over five years, and is about a topic (an avant-garde composer) which wouldn't necessarily get a lot of popular attention, I can't find any independent sources, and none have been provided. If some reliable independent sources are found before this AfD closes, I may reconsider. I don't know how the 2003 VfD (votes for deletion) discussion can be found. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I spent some time with this, examining his website particularly regarding performances of works and trying to track down anything on the internet or in books or news and came up short. I may have found a couple of trivial mentions of him as a french horn player but nothing as a composer. I'm not even sure if he is the "Bob Taylor" whose son "Robert Taylor" is a conductor, but regardless, he doesn't meet our notability standards regarding in-depth coverage or by WP:CREATIVE. Things were much less difficult in 2003 but it looks like he didn't meet the standards back then either but the article was kept anyway. Drawn Some (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Joel, Garreau (2009-05-21). "Telekinetic devices coming to a toy store near you?". Nashua Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-06-05.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_7&oldid=295049327"