Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 30

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jared555 (talk | contribs) at 20:58, 30 June 2009 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craigh Barboza. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 29 June 1 July >

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 delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craigh Barboza

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

BLP with no references Jared555 (talk) 20:58, 30 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. BJTalk 03:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chkeiban

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

Jared555 (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note this was nominated for speedy deletion under criterion A7 by user:SchnitzelMannGreek, but this was declined by Aqwis with the comment "not eligible". Jared555 then nominated it for deletion here but did not add the AfD tag to the article, which I have now done. Earlier today an almost identical version of the article was nominated for speedy deletion as a test page (G2) by user:GainLine, which was carried out by Nehrams2020. Personally I don't think that this falls under the spirit of a G4 speedy deletion for recreation of deleted content.
The article itself is a sub-sub-stub about a Lebanese family name, but the author does not know the origin of the name or the family. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Appologize for not listing a reason. I nominated this as there are no references and no indication of this being a notable subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared555 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 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) 00:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9/12 Candidate

AfDs for this article:
9/12 Candidate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I originally deleted this as A7-Corp, but another editor objected, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. ... discospinster talk 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have just received notification that this page is slotted for deletion. My opinion may not matter much. If you delete this page now you'll only be re-adding it later. 9/12 Candidate is growing as a buzzword among political circles. We are NOT in an election year, but the organization finding and promoting 9/12 Candidates is growing strong. In fact there are more that 600,000 people listed as 9/12ers in the country.
There is a political tsunami in the works. 9/12 Candidates is a part of that. I would recommend that you NOT delete this page. One of Wikipedia's strength's is that is accommodates new ideas faster than traditional media encyclopaedias. Granted, I'm not the final say, that's for someone else who may have no idea what's going on. Sure, you wont here this mentioned on the news yet, but just because it's operating under the radar of the traditional media doesn't mean that it's not viable.
My 2 cents
Jacob F. Roecker (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even assuming notability, it's better suited for a dictionary.-Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When and if this becomes notable then it can be included, yes. Wikipedia might be faster than a paper encyclopedia but it is not a crystal ball--Talain (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Political tsunami or not, it's not notable yet. The article relies almost entirely on a website run by the 9/12 project. We could normally use Glenn Beck's show as a RS, but when it's to promote it's own project, the COI becomes an issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait I understand this article doesn't quite fit the norms yet. Believe me it's odd, and yes, ATM it's difficult to reference outside of the site. That's changing, and changing rapidly. Within the next week Wikipedia's articles for Adam Kokesh, and Rosanna Pulido will be changing. Ron Miller and Rand Paul's pages should be linking back to this one. Because the organization is not a 501C or a PAC it's official identity is based on the candidates who are willing to sign, and the volunteers who are working on the site. Let's look at it from this perspective... There are more than 600,000 people who identify themselves as 9/12ers. They will want candidates who represent what they stand for. A 9/12 Candidate can come from any political party. They simply need to sign the contract.
    • For the record, I think maybe what needs to happen is this article should be steered toward the point where it can remain. No one working on this is paid by Glenn Beck or his staff to falsely promote something on his behalf. 912Candidates.org isn't run by "the 9/12 project" I'm sure most of the contributors to the article have visited the website.
    • So, if I understand things properly. The wiki pages (that already exist) for candidates who have signed this contract ought to link here. The references ought to refer to the candidate's websites, not the posts on http://912candidates.org. The article needs to mention something regarding its significance towards the top of the article--I think referencing 600,000 people who identify themselves as 9/12ers ought to do it. With those changes, will it still be under consideration for deletion? 70.243.182.46 (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say that Beck runs the website, but it is impossible to seperate him from this because it is his idea, word for word. Nor have I accused anyone from Beck's staff from being involved. I don't think that is the case at all. Regardless, the 912candidates.org website is a primary source and the article relies almost entirely on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. You will be adding this later. The 9/12 Movement can be referenced or used as an addendum to the Tea Parties of 2009.
  • Do not delete. Merely because you disagree with a stance, doesn't mean it should be deleted from Wikipedia. This is not a minor movement, but rather includes 100's of thousands of people.
  • Delete. So far, this would appear to be a non-notable organization and a one-man campaign. If it becomes notable in the future, this can always be reconsidered. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreferencable at present, as the article's advocate admits. Possible merge with the article on Beck. DGG (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the referencing issues mentioned above have now been addressed. How do we ask the fine editors for another reiview? Also, this may best be modified for an entry on a page about "the 9/12 Movement" or "the 9/12 Project." Thus far Glenn Beck's page is the only one that references these two things. 9/12 Candidates may fit nicely into an article about a "9/12 Movement" 155.219.241.11 (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC) (JFR)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against re-creation. Per others' comments, it can be restored when notability is better established.--JayJasper (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • G2G --I believe all of the issues addressed in this review have now been covered. Prominence is determined by the calibre of the candidates (Rand Paul and Sen Bob Smith) as well as the AIP's endorsement. The construction of the article is still sloppy, but I don't believe this is grounds for deletion, rather good coaching on the part of the editors, whose input I welcome on the discussion page for the article. [1] 155.219.241.11 (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC) (JFR)[reply]
  • Delete. Predictions of "this party will be very popular" violates WP:CRYSTAL. 68.244.204.67 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like grounds for re-wording not delete there... but hey. I'm the new guy. That's why I asked for good coaching from editors...  ;-) 70.243.182.46 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)(JFR)[reply]
      • Looked for such predictions and didn't see them... Please advise (jacob <at> 912candidates.org)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia is not a free web hosting or promotion service. Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The title doesn't fit the material. The material is mostly about the 9-12 pledge. The material is already on the Glenn Beck article. The article may never be able to be notable because the relevant information about candidates who sign the pledge is: they signed. It would seem doomed to be always a copy of the pledge, and a list of the candidates. And of course the aforementioned issues of notability, present or foretold. Anarchangel (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As written, this is a political manifesto whose purpose is to promote a particular view of government and a set of candidates who've signed a pledge to uphold that view, not an objective article about a political movement. While it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility that a genuine encyclopedia article could be written about this topic, this article isn't it. Delete unless vastly improved by close. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Glenn Beck, perhaps to Glenn_Beck#The_9.2F12_Project. The fork appears to be sourced primarily to WP:SELFPUBs and does not demonstrate independent notability. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Glenn Beck. As it stands now this article is little more than blatant WP:SOAP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • EDIT Dear Editors: It seems to me that you ought to start living up to your name and helping to edit the bias out of the article. The same amount of keystrokes it takes to offer a recommendation for "delete" might be used to edit the bias in the article. Or am I starting to sniff an agenda in the air? Seems a bias is the only thing wrong with the page now. That's not grounds for deletion. That's grounds for editing!!!
  • Now that's a little bit clearer. So, how long does this review process go on? It might take close to a month to have this particular issue addressed. Besides, I'm not seeing the same comments about Green Bloggers, Blogging Tories, and Cox_&_Forkum and maybe some attention should be headed that way... This wikipedia entry will probably remain stagnant for a couple of weeks before this can be addressed. It would make sense though, that the basic definition of a 9/12 Candidate is added to the Category:9/12 Candidates page. This would help define the topic, and those that qualify for the category Rand Paul etc. Would this be an appropriate solution? Delete this entry until a more credible source exists, add the definition of what a 9/12 Candidate is to the Category:9/12 Candidates page? The category is likely to be legitimate even if this article is not. Please advise.
  • AfDs usually last for a week, making this one due for closure by the 7th. If you think you could improve the article but would need more time, then you might be able to WP:USERFY it for a while. If you'd rather avoid that hassle, then you can just save the piece to your hard drive before the AfD closes (click the article's edit tab, select and copy the contents, and paste them into a word processor), and then re-create it once you're reasonably confident that it conforms to encyclopedic standards (especially WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV). If the revision did still end up back at AfD, it might stand a greater chance than the current version of ending in a "keep" or at least a "merge/redirect" consensus. As for the category, that is up for deletion, too. In fact, it was that discussion that led me to this one. I haven't participated in that CfD; I just saw it after I nominated one of my own on the same day. Ironically, it was the mention of a preexisting category that legitimated the item I wanted to delete (and led me to withdraw the nomination), whereas the category you're invoking is just as controversial as the item you're defending. I have a hunch that both the AfD and the CfD are going to end up as deletes, so I'd recommend userfication or something like it if you think you can improve the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. If the article ends up being WP:REDIRECTed to, say, Glenn Beck rather than deleted outright, then all previous versions of the article will remain available to you in the page history of the redirect. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question So if this one has gone through the review process, and gets deleted on the 7th, then I will happily nominate Green Bloggers, Blogging Tories, and Cox_&_Forkum for the same review process as well. If wikipedia's policies are to be enforced, they should be enforced on the left & right of the political spectrum. The volume of discussion on this topic appears as though the conservative entries are worth the attention and review of editors (even deletion) while entries on the left remain. In order to maintain wikipedia's neutrality those other entries should submit to this same review. Until they are brought to that point, I does not fit reason that this article should be deleted.
  • I didn't say it was an excuse for keeping this article. I said you need to enforce your standards. It's not MY encyclopedia that looks biased. Why does this article get so much attention? Really. If I do recommend them for deletion, then it's easy for the authors to cite me as having an agenda. That's not how this is supposed to work. I'm surprised you might have suggested it. If I did believe that wikipedia had an agenda (and the jury is still out), I might think that was the intent of your suggestion, have me (with my "evil" conservative views) label something as not noteworthy, and have it remain because it's easy in our culture to call your opponent biased. So, no, I won't be nominating the aforementioned sites for deletion. I will continue to argue that if several people who are noteworthy enough to have a wikipedia article about them, have signed this contract, then the contract, by nature is noteworthy. I will also argue that just because something has not hit the 'mainstream media' for verification, invalidates it's importance. Certainly after an independent blogtalkradio host with several hundred listeners called us, and asked us to be the subject of at least 7 of his shows, including interviews with Rand Paul and Senator Bob Smith, this should validate the article. Of course, that didn't hit the normal media. So it doesn't qualify. Just like the 9/12 Movement get's a casual mention on Glenn Beck's article, but no one is writing a separate article about how the 661,000 9/12ers are forming non-profit organizations, PACs, and Kitchen Table Organizations across the country. Still, my favorite argument against this whole thing is the blacklisting of "washingtonisbroke" because I asked him to make edits. Gee, he knew something about what was going on, and edited user generated content. Don't you as editors edit based upon what you research and what you know? I mean the article on "communication" is biased, it was written by authors of the American Communication Association and represents only a small portion of the discipline, and a relatively narrow model. It's also written in such a way that major changes would have to be made to the article in order to fix it. I know, that doesn't justify leaving this up. Got it. What it does illustrate is that one of the fundamental issues with user generated content is that the users who edit, are generally the ones who know something about their subject. This article does meet notability guidelines. 661,000 9/12ers, AIP endorsement on their website, published by their site admin (would you like the head of AIP to send you an email--I can get it?), Glenn Beck discussing it on his radio show, and candidates who have already had wikipedia articles about them for years. So if those four things don't qualify this article as noteworthy, I guess we'll have to wait until some "noteworthy" organization recognizes 9/12 Candidates. Since the accuracy of noteworthy organizations is never without question. Of course, I'm sure the reason this article is getting so much attention is because of the embarrassment a few months ago: [2]. Yeah, wouldn't want to repeat that one again.... Please people, aren't there more important things to be worrying about editing? Or maybe actually, could you help "Edit" the article so bias is removed, the subject is discussed, and the article conforms more towards wikipedia's guidelines? Thank you for your time.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to WP:ATHLETE failure. If he ever plays in a fully pro league, drop me a note and I'll restore it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Quinn (footballer)

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

Association football player who fails WP:ATHLETE because he has never played above the semi-professional Football Conference level. I don't think he is particularly noteworthy otherwise. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you missed out a 'not' above. A game being shown on widely-available TV channels (well, until now!) is inherently notable. Eldumpo (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes I did, thanks. There's people on television every second of the day, it doesn't make them notable. It certainly doesn't make players who play in a league that have a handful of games shown on television notable. --Jimbo[online] 07:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion on the notability of asteroids can continue at WP:ASTRO. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7528 Huskvarna

7528 Huskvarna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not satisfy Wikipedia's Notability criteria. It has not received significant independent coverage: a Google search appears to bring up mainly lists of asteroids and Wikipedia mirrors/translations. A search for the asteroid's name on the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data Service (ADS) abstracts system retrieves no results [3], nor does a search for its previous temporary designation 1993 FS39 [4]. Icalanise (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are 10,392 asteroid stubs (see Category:Asteroid stubs), which I think is ample evidence that according to Wikipedia custom and practice, any asteroid on the JPL Small-Body Database is included. This seems to coincide with Wikipedia's Five Pillars, which explain that one of Wikipedia's purposes is a gazeteer. Mention of this asteroid would certainly belong on a gazeteer.

    Strictly, this fails notability, so a policy-based outcome would be a merge to List of minor planets: 7001–8000, but I just don't have the heart to recommend that, considering that if we decide asteroids can be non-notable, there will be an awful lot of merges to do.

    So the outcome I recommend is that we decide asteroids are "geographical locations" for notability purposes, and go with keep.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question is whether it is worth the effort of maintaining the stats at two different places. Makes it more difficult/tedious to keep things up-to-date if orbital elements are revised, and provides a place for malicious/wrong edits to accumulate and remain for long periods of time... Multiple mergers are a one-off task, could probably be achieved by bot (after all, most of these are bot-created) Icalanise (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. I've opened a can of worms here... are we deciding on this article or are we deciding on notability guidelines for asteroids in general? It may be worth taking this to the discussion page of WP:N, if the latter.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. This asteroid is not notable. It has no information that would traditionally be associated with a gazeteer since this is not a human settlement or even a place that humans have explored. In general, tabular information is better kept in tables, not spun out into infoboxes. This article will be difficult to maintain. Perhaps asteroids could be at least gathered into types or classes and discussed as groups...there would seem to be very little to say about any one isolated asteroid. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge Deleting this article doesn't improve the encyclopedia. If it's not independently notable then redirect/ merge to the appropriate target(s). Plus it's named after that lawnmower company. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep As stated above, Wikipedia is a gazetteer according to the Five Pillars. Do minor planets qualify? That's the big question. At the risk of using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, these articles are no worse than the thousands of Star stubs, and the maybe tens of thousands of articles on little hamlets, lakes other geographical features across the world. Also, a merge of all information would be impractical...we'd be losing a lot of info about the orbital and physical characteristics of these rocks. It seems that the information is verifiable and moderately abundant for at least the first few thousand minor planets; I see no reason not to keep them barring community consensus to change the notability standards for WP:ASTRO.-RunningOnBrains(talk page) 00:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if not for anything else for the fact that a merge is really unfeasible. It is really not expand the list article with all the characteristics listed in the infobox here. Nergaal (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider geographical/astrographical/biological/etc articles inherently notable. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to relist to gain a bigger response. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East County Blackshirts

East County Blackshirts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another non/semi-professional high school based team Passportguy (talk) 10:14, 16 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, 23 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 19:43, 30 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 Government Information Office. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Info

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

Non-notable online language website. Failing to find some improving sources. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 11:04, 16 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, 23 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 19:42, 30 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. Nja247 07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. SOS

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO Tan | 39 19:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Offline, his freestyle battles became the catalyst for national attention, with everyone from local radio stations like 99 Jamz to The Source Magazine vying to give him exposure. A controversial appearance on the televised Source Soundlab’s Unsigned Hype Battle was the catalyst for a brief battle with Benzino over a fixed win and money owed. The beef was diffused, and SOS appeared on The Source’s Unsigned Hype DVD, as well as the Beef DVD series."[1] Messs17 (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —LedgendGamer 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I'm going to interpret Peridon's comment as a "weak keep" so I don't have to say "no consensus". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tobias

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

Non-notable small-scale investor and self promoter, so fails to meet WP:N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJeffMa (talk • contribs) — WikiJeffMa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Strong Keep I agree that the article is poorly sourced and needs desperate work. But a wealth of good sources exist, and the article could be easily cleaned up--and I don't think comes close to a candidate for deletion. google news archive search shows a wealth of articles in high-profile publications, including some written about him in depth: [5] in BusinessWeek. Articles cover him in all different regards, as CEO of Imperial Renewables: [6], others discuss him as an investor, his ability to raise funds: [7]. This is above and beyond what is required to establish notability: detailed coverage in multiple reliable sources, found with very little effort. Cazort (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the sentiment, in my scan of the sources I found, there was negative coverage too. I think it is important to incorporate this sort of material into the article as well...NPOV means presenting all perspectives that have substantial coverage in reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 02:05, 1 July 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 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion.. There isn't a clear consensus for merging, and there was very little discussion of closing as delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Palestine war

1948 Palestine war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is a WP:POVFORK of the main 1948 Arab-Israeli War page. 1948 War (with a capital "W") redirects to the main page while 1948 war (with a lowercase "W") redirects to this POV fork. GHcool (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A real debate took place on the IPCOOL project : [8]. It was not intended, such as the current RfD to pov-push a disgusting pov. Just keep in the area where you have a minimum know-how personal attack removed by Nableezy User:ceedjee

You don't know anything about the topic and you didn't even read the source. Go and see them. Go and read at least the lead. AND THEN APOLOGIZE. You should be forbidden to vote. User:ceedjee
You don't know anything about the topic and you didn't even read the source. Go and see them. Go and read at least the lead. AND THEN APOLOGIZE. You should be forbidden to vote. User:ceedjee
  • Merge per Fuzbaby. I see no useful neutral-POV information that merits a standalone article, especially when the main article has a neutral title. I also recommend speedy-redirecting 1948 war (lowercase "w") to the main article. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many wars in 1948. The most important war occuring in India. If you don't know anything about history, refrain from voting. user:ceedjee
General question I'll ignore the personal commentary and address the relevant point -- do other years with multiple major wars have disambiguation pages? If so, then 1948 war and 1948 War ought to both redirect to the appropriate disambiguation page, possibly "Major wars in 1948". --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge What I see now is either poorly sourced or duplicates the material on the main page anyway, anything sourced and not included on the main page can be happily merged in. Cazort (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly source !??? You should be forbidden to give any mind. They are given in the articles. They are at the end of this. User:ceedjee
POVFORK ??? PROVE THIS. You are just a stupid ignorant. User:ceedjee
Blatant povfork. You are just a stupid ignorant. You didn't even take care to read the source and you didn't even take care to go and see who read this. Did you only ask him. All people who consider "merge" are stupid ignorant who, sorry that, should be forbiden to edit any encyclopaedia. user:ceedjee
  • In case it helps, Benny Morris splits the 1948 Palestine War (or what he calls the 1948 War) into (1) the first stage of the civil war (this is when he says "the war begins") beginning November 30, 1947; (2) the second stage of the civil war, beginning April 1948; (3) the Pan-Arab invasion, May 15, 1948; and (4) the various operations thereafter. I can't see the benefit of losing that structure by deleting 1948 Palestine War. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Efraim Karsh, in some ways on the opposite "side" from Morris, if we have to speak in these terms: "The 1948 Palestine War was probably the most important Middle Eastern armed confrontation since the destruction of the Ottoman empire, and the creation of a new regional order in the wake of the First World War. By the time the fighting ended in the summer of 1949 ..." (Arafat's War, p. 33). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alon Kadish and Avraham Sela (2005). "Myths and historiography of the 1948 Palestine War revisited: the case of Lydda," The Middle East Journal, September 22, 2005.
  • Ilan Pappe (2004). A History of Modern Palestine, Cambridge University Press, p. 131, section called "the Palestine War," though his dates are different (May to January 1949), p. 131.
The above shows that from left-wing anti-Zionist to right-wing pro-Zionist, Israeli academic historians use the term. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's beside the point. The point isn't that the term is POV (although, one could argue that it is). The point is that there is another better, longer article about the war already under a better name. --GHcool (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You argued that it was a POV fork; that is your deletion reason. But the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article isn't about the 1948 Palestine War. Different timeframe. And the term is used by historians from all persuasions, so it's not a POV term. Therefore, I'm not seeing why you would want to delete it. It's the kind of thing that will keep on being recreated, because people will look for it and wonder why it's not there. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't follow what you're saying. AfDs are not where merges and content is decided. What is decided here is whether to delete the title. Anyone can recreate the content, and they will, because it would be odd not to have an article on it. You keep saying it's the same as the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, but you haven't shown that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be disingenuous. The 1948 Arab-Israeli war has a section on the civil war.Historicist (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. LOL. LOL. What a stupid comment. It has not. It is in the context. You didn't even read this. You just one of these frustrated pov-pusher. 81.244.182.215 (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page 1948 Arab-Israeli War has an extensive section on the civil war.Historicist (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have here a FULL PANEL of RECENT SCHOLARS on the TOPIC and MOST OF ALL, from absolutely ALL SIDES and ALL POV's.
GHCool was fully aware of this. He is just a pov-pusher.
User:ceedjee
  • Immediate undefinite topic ban of GHCool and Historicist for blatant pov pushing. user:ceedjee
  • comment Most wars have multiple names. Statements like "This is the term that historians use..." are necessarily untrue when describing wars, like this one, where each side has a preferred name. In this case, Many Israelis prefer some version of the phrase "War of Independence." Many proponents of the Palestinian perspective prefer "War in Palestine" and the most widely-used neutral term is some version of Arab-Israeli War. This widely accepted phrase, "1948 Arab-Israeli War" has the virtue of listing, with brevity and accuracy, the opponents, Israeli on one side and several Arab states on the other, without giving a POV, as any inclusion of the word "Independence" would do. The advantage or problem with the phrase War in Palestine is that Palestine has come to be both a geographic term and the term widely used term for the aspirational state of the Palestinian people. The phrase therefore gives and inexorably POV boost to the belief that this was a war in land that belonged to a designated nation, i.e., it implies that since the war was fought in Palestine it was fought on land that rightfully belongs to the Palestinian nation. In reality, of course, the question of which nation or nations have a right to sovereignty on that land is the very issue that is being fought over. Use of the word Palestine as the article title is a violation of NPOV.Historicist (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but that comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are discussing here. The sources provided above have multiple Israeli historians using this name. Also, as has been pointed out, the phrase Israeli War of Independence != Palestine War. And it implies no such thing as that the land belongs to the Palestinian nation. See, there was this place, it was called the British Mandate of Palestine, in fact the Jews who lived there were called Palestinian Jews. The name implies that it was fought in mandatory Palestine, which actually was a real place. Amazing what a little reading and not just going on ones gut feelings can do. Nableezy (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is a raucous democracy with a famously free press. Unlike the situation in many countries, Israelis are entitled to publish whatever they please. A good many Israeli historians choose to publish books that present the history of the region from a highly partisan Palestinian point of view. My point, however, is that it is specifically historians who write as advocates of the Palestinian perspective - of whatever ancestry and of whatever citizenship - who use the term Palestine War.Historicist (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cherrypicking examples to support your position is not helpful. There are hundreds of books about this war. You selectively site a title by Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, but Gelber also has a book entitled: Independence Versus Nakbah: The Arab–Israeli War of 1948. In an imperfect world, Arab-Israeli War is the most commonly used and probably the most parsimonious and neutral term available.Historicist (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you not understand about this statement of absolute fact: 1948 Palestine War is not the same thing as the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, the second forms a part of the first. And you originally said that "Many Israelis prefer some version of the phrase "War of Independence", not what you say you meant later. But as to what you think you mean now (at least until that is shown to be fraudulent as well), would you care to show something backing up that statement? Or is it again your gut feeling? Nableezy (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is already covered in 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and 1948 Arab-Israeli War.Historicist (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And this article should be a parent to those summary style. Nableezy (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge TomStar81 (Talk) 23:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The problem here is that people are trying to use AfD as a way of solving a content dispute. AfD can't rule on the content of a page, or merges, or redirects. AfD is here to decide whether a title should be deleted entirely. The content was already discussed here, where it was decided that 1948 Palestine War was an umbrella term used by historians from all sides to cover essentially two wars: (1) a civil war in 1947-1948 between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews in Palestine before the state of Israel existed; and (2) a war between Israelis and other Arab states started on May 15, 1948, triggered by Israel's declaration of independence. It is historically inaccurate to say, "well, there was really only ever one war." The second was entirely different from the first, in terms of combatants, and in terms of goals. I ask that an admin who has never been involved in the I/P disputes before, and who has no known relationship with the participants, close this, because we have a situation here where we have the numbers on one side, and the historical facts (as well as WP policy about deletion) on the other. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I meant to add to the above that Historicist has admitted the opposition here is to the word "Palestine." This is an issue I've been seeing increasingly on Wikipedia, namely that a small number of Israeli editors and their supporters are trying to make certain words disappear from Wikipedia. (It's ironic that those same editors recently condemned the ArbCom for blocking pro-Israeli accounts that were trying to stop the words "Judea" and "Samaria" from disappearing.) The only point that matters for Wikipedia is that we are not here to make words and terms disliked by one side or another disappear from history. Palestine existed, as did Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews, and a series of distinct, separable battles were fought for supremacy over certain parts of it in 1947-1948, only one of which is called the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (or what the Israelis call their War of Independence, a title I personally would have no problem using for it). Historians call that series of battles the 1948 Palestine War. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Speedy) Per SlimVirgin, Nableezy, etc. This is not at all a case of POVFORKing, or something which should be in AfD at all. This is a summary / umbrella article, covering a war which had two major phases, each having its own article. It is not a fork of either. Quoting from the lede of these articles, there was:

  • A Civil War, the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, which " lasted from 30 November 1947, the date of the United Nations vote in favour of the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the UN Partition Plan,[3] to the termination of the British Mandate itself on 14 May 1948."

followed by

  • A War between nations, 1948 Arab–Israeli War "The war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine in mid-May 1948 following a previous phase of civil war in 1947–1948."

The current structure was decided at the IP collaboration as noted above. This, 1948 Palestine war, is the "main article", not 1948 Arab–Israeli War; changing this would entail changing the subjects of the two daughter articles. Nobody is suggesting use of the delete button or anything but normal editting. Peoples' feelings about "Palestine" and what the article should be named is not at all a matter for AfD.John Z (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand, if this is a parent article to those two shouldnt each of them cover more ground individually? Can you explain your objection to having this as a parent article to those two? And merge where? Nableezy (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand either. That the Wikipedia:Summary style article has less detail than the ones it summarizes is the usual way.John Z (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 1948 Palestine War article does need to be built up more, which is perhaps what Alan is seeing. It should be written in summary style, with sections on the civil war and the Arab-Israeli war, but without going into the military details, which should be left to those sub-articles. It also needs sections on the background and the demographic and political consequences. I'm willing to help do that, but I'm not keen on having to do it before this AfD is over. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SlimVirgin's reasoning above is fair. I'll add that we do have a problem of basically the same information appearing in too many places, but this problem should be solved in cooperative workshops, not by arguments on AfD pages. Zerotalk 21:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- While I have not examined all the "child" articles in detail, this article is seeking to provide an overview of the entire sequence of events. The use of "Palestine" does not indicate POV-pushing: that was the official name of the territory subject to the British mandate. However I would prefer to see the article covering all the events of the 1940s in Palestine, including the unrest that led to the termination of the British mandate. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SlimVirgin Gang14 (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously helps with context. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 appears as if the G11 ship has sailed and there are no other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christel House International

Christel House International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does have coverage but is an advert There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wow buddy what you been smokinh? LOlThere is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. There seems to be clearly material to write an article. The same admin did all the speedies, with the reasons f , A7 and G11 -- and both of them are wrong. Indicating it serves a large no. of people is an indication of notability, & there was an informative core. It was also marked for copyvio of http://christelhouse.org/ --some of it was, but not all. DGG (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the assertion that G11 was wrong. G11 states that the article "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic", which I felt applied to original incarnations. TNXMan 19:14, 30 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. Two deletes that are good as based on inclusion criteria. Nja247 07:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollin 30's

AfDs for this article:
Rollin 30's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. I'm not impressed by the current limited sourcing, either. JBsupreme (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Ryan

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

Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso (talk) 17:24, 30 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 --JForget 23:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Blacker

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

Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just a typical case of players being added days after being drafted which time and again consensus shows is not enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Doesnt seem to have anything mentioned here why hes notable. no sources present. Byond this as stated above second rounders are not notable until they play professionally. 1st rounders though are. I can see the first few picks in the second round squeeking by but again nothing in the article explains why hes notable. We can re add him once he satisfies the criteria at player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE for hockey players. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:55, 30 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 23:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmini Peries

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

Article has WP:COI issues and shaky references at best; does not appear to be notable based on google search results and its WP:ORPHAN status. Appears to be an article of self-promotion or other similar un-wikipedia-like nonsense. I just cannot find any valid reason why this article exists. Timneu22 (talk) 17:08, 30 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) 00:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, closing per WP:SNOW. The result is pretty obvious; even bands we do not really like may still (unfortunately) meet inclusion criteria. Shereth 14:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brokencyde

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

Again, non-notable. This article has been repeatedly salted because they are non-notable. And no, charting at #86 does not notability make. I know that's the baseline at WP:MUSIC, but consider: to reach 86th, all you have to do is push a few-thousand copies. It's technically speedyable for G4, but, again, it has to go through AFD because of a DRV that lasted about three hours. Sceptre (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no notability. Timneu22 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's also a shame, but I am of the "keep the professor" school, rather than the "delete the band" school. Not sure what it would take for Wikipedia to catch up with academia, but I wish it would. Chubbles (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It passes WP:MUSIC, so we keep. If you have an issue with the notability criteria, go make an RFC about it. Grandmartin11 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficiently notable for an article. They have received sufficient coverage and are well-enough known to be notable, unlike some full professors I used to work with, btw.--Michig (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, charting at #86 does notability make. If you don't like the criteria at WP:MUSIC, go attempt to change it. Tan | 39 20:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – not to mention that the album charted, there are also some coverage from what I think are reliable sources [9] and [10]. MuZemike 20:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been a delete !voter in three of the previous Afds, but this time it is different. This sorry excuse for a band has released it's debut album, had it chart at #86 (a pretty good achievement, considering the quality on offer here), and has become the subject of independent coverage from reliable sources. That's enough to pass WP:MUSIC#1 for me. sparkl!sm hey! 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Tanthalas39. Whether you agree charting #86 confers notability or not, it does satisfy the WP:MUSIC criteria. You should be making your argument there.-Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't usually comment on music stuff but Sparklism sums up the argument. This is an encyclopedia and it is conceivable that someone wants information about this band and it has more than met our baseline requirements and should be included. (I do understand that just because something meets the minimum requirements doesn't mean it MUST be included.) Drawn Some (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you do attempt a RfC about the music criteria, please drop me the link. I think it is way too low. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be a funny event to start changing the rules, because in order to change WP:MUSIC such that this band is excluded, you'd have to set the bar so high that it'd never survive an RfC. Chubbles (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with Comment They have been and are currently on several notable music tours/festivals. And the recent chart success is more than enough. My comment is that it seems lately that many articles aren't given a fair chance. Someone creates one on a band that could pass but isn't even given enough time to edit the article, add sources, etc. before someone who just hasn't heard of the band puts it up for deletion and then has 6 other people who haven't heard of the band feel the same way and it's pulled. I also feel a lot of the reason this keeps getting nominated is because of how much hatred the band gets when people are supposed to remain unbiased. I even noticed people giving their opinions on quality in here. DX927 (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur, far too many people nominate music articles without knowing much at all about music. If I were to go and nominate the article of a scientific theory I've never heard of, I'd be shot down, and I wouldn't do so because I just don't know the topic. If a user isn't sure, they should be using the template indicating that an article may not meet our notability criteria. Musicians are probably one of the most popular subjects for which people use Wikipedia, and getting rid of articles on published and notable musicians seems counter-productive to me, especially given the way that the music world is changing and charting means very little anymore. For example, this 2007 discussion had a collection of editors suggesting to merge the biography of a charting band to the article of one of their songs, because they didn't know anything about the topic at hand. It's a little embarrassing, and I suspect Wikipedia looks a little red-faced when users see we're considering a band they just saw on TV or at a large festival as not being notable. Esteffect (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A final point is, although this isn't the place, I think the bar for WP:MUSIC is right in some ways (charting musicians should always be notable), and completely wrong in others. We often delete the articles of bands whom are up-and-coming, which is precisely the time that a lot of users are going to want to find out more about them. I think this should be reflected in WP:MUSIC that, once a band is receiving coverage from a large music website or media source (e.g. BBC News, NME) that they are then eliglible for inclusion. I'm sure someone whom only believes in having articles on Britney Spears and U2 will shoot that suggestion down, however. Esteffect (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd really like to see 2 things clarified. Which charts (how many different Billboard charts alone are there right now? I also think there should be a point on the charts to call it notable. 200 out of 200 is still "charting", but it is sure different from 2 out of 200. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear in the article that the chart concerned in the Billboard 200, which is the only Billboard album chart that really matters as it's based on sales - it's the US album chart.--Michig (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is starting to get a bit off topic, but if a band is receiving significant coverage from the sources that you mentioned, they would already be notable according to WP:MUSIC as it is now.--Michig (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Kuzub

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

Delete Fails notability simultaneously fails "Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)" Self advertisement. attempt to hijack notability. Likely self written. data referenced solely by the authors personal website which is in fact copy and paste. Article is linked with anything related to the city likely as a way of creating notability for the Authors Brand (Musical recording) or as way to create notability where there is not. Personal Propaganda should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Lou mann (talk) 17:06, 30 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 --JForget 23:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden G on the Radio

Aiden G on the Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - Article's subject does not meet general notability guidelines for inclusion. The only sources are primary (subject's myspace and the radio station which the show airs on). Bmg916Speak 16:42, 30 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 --JForget 23:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian post-hardcore

Christian post-hardcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete is this a definable and notable genre? is this article the right start? no sources, no context, no nothing... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:09, 30 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 Swansea Cork Ferries. (X! · talk)  · @278  ·  05:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swansea Cork Ferries

Swansea Cork Ferries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication of notability, no sources, fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:00, 30 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 to comply with WP:BAND. ~ mazca talk 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needmore (band)

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

Delete fails WP:BAND, seems to be more an advertisement for the band than an article about them, sourced to their website, youtube, and myspace, but no independent references or indication of notability: the authors of the page have a clear COI and while the article states that the band "strives to constantly push eachother to emotional breakage points, always taking their songwriting to the next irritating level", that is not particularly notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:29, 30 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) 00:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of authors opposing cults

List of authors opposing cults (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As we all know lists are evil, and this one exemplifies why. It has no meaningful content. It is a violation of WP:NOR since no criteria exists governing inclusion to the list. What is the working definition of "cult"? What establishes "opposition"? Why "authors"? If someone known for writing cookbooks says in an interview that they are opposed to Raëlism do they go on the list? This page is a WP:COATRACK for "cult" criticism. PelleSmith (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • DGG lists are evil because they often require editors to become arbiters of categories which are not at all obvious from the outset. They also rarely give us anything of encyclopedic value (that can't be done better with simple categories when appropriate). This list is not a "List of anti-cult writers" which by what you have written one might confuse it for. It most probably is not such a list in the first place because of the politics involved with using terms like "anti-cult", despite there acceptance in mainstream scholarship. If you identify writers with a known social movement then you can actually verify inclusion through reliable sources, but as it is this list begs for subjective value judgments -- again why most lists are evil. I would also like to add that there are no "rules for using the name" here on the Wiki, if by "name" you mean "cult".PelleSmith (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most lists, btw, are based on purely factual matters, so your generalization doesn't apply. Since we keep almost all lists brought here, it's hard to say that "lists are evil" represents our policy, the items are justified at the article level. The question is whether this list is too subjective. If the article can source that he is considered an anti-cult writer, that's sufficient.. DGG (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Remove previous comments] I do believe it is too subjective for reasons already stated. Also I have struck all general comments about lists.PelleSmith (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to Pelle's strikeout by also striking out comments I had made that are now irrelevant. DGG (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Story of Bonnie and Clyde

The Story of Bonnie and Clyde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NFF. Per recent sources the film is still at the stage of casting and location scouting, while the article itself admits that production is still a month away (if things run to schedule, of course). Don't be fooled by the number of references that have just been added to the article; there is little of substance on offer here. PC78 (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing more to be said. Thanks, MacMedtalkstalk 01:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. Wow. Someone sure like to use Myspace and blogs as sources. The best I could find with some deep digging is that most cast is locked and the film is "expected" to begin filming later this year [13]. Allow it back once principle filming has begun and it gets enough film coverage to pass WP:NFF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete breaking up a myspace page and regurgitating it is not an article. Kudos to them for avoiding copyvio but until the cameras roll it doesn't get an article. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sit Down, Shut Up characters. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Littlejunk

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

An attempt to create an article for a 4-episode appearing character has been left untouched. What is on the page is mostly an 'American Dad!' infobox, not 'Sit Down Shut Up'. -- A talk/contribs 15:01, 30 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. WP:SNOW \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Dying (Cashis album)

The Art of Dying (Cashis album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Euthanasia LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)

WP:CRYSTAL, insufficient info for a whole article. Soures are primary or unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 30 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:SNOW J.delanoygabsadds 20:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket CO

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

No sign of notability, Wikipedia is not an advertising. It could be a blatant ad. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 14:27, 30 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 copyvio. TeaDrinker (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malak Ahmad Khan

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

Doesn't meet WP:N and possible hoax? Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:24, 30 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. Three deletes. If the editor who wishes to merge wants I will make the text available to them so that any text that passes inclusion criteria can be merged. Nja247 07:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young Australians Tourism Association

Young Australians Tourism Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG. no third party coverage [15]. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose merge as Tourism Western Australia is an official Government agency (thus would have an annual budget, annual report etc) whilst Young Australians Tourism Association is basically a club. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks third party references from independent sources. Appears to be more "non-notable association running networking events" than "peak industry body". Murtoa (talk) 07:23, 1 July 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) 00:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Murtoa. Can confirm Tourism Western Australia is an official arm of the Government of Western Australia; this is more akin to a student guild or limited-membership social organisation. (They have nice breakfasts, though.) Orderinchaos 11:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subaru Legacy (fifth generation)

Subaru Legacy (fifth generation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is simply a reproduction of all of the content contained in the appropriate section of Subaru Legacy. It adds no unique content and should be deleted as the existing article is adequate. Biker Biker (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Pretty overwhelming keep, so happy to withdraw my nomination for deletion. I will however take a look at the main Subaru Legacy article and make sure it doesn't contain too much information, or contain any info not already listed in the individual model-generation articles. Thanks everyone. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hezekiah M. Washburn

Hezekiah M. Washburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While I am sure that he is a fine human being, I can't see where the subject passes notability standards. As an author, his book A Knight in the Congo (also nomintated for deletion) ranks #3,701,636 at Amazon and there is a lack of reviews or reliable sources on it. Ghits for Washburn result in just over 500 returns, mostly wikipedia, its mirrors and geneology sites. Gnews comes up with no returns. The article itself asserts no notability aside from the aforementioned book and allegedly being called a knight by the King of the Congo, but the article can't source it and can only approximate what year it happened in. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:12, 30 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) 00:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Many questionable !votes from new accounts muddy the consensus. BJTalk 03:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lombardia Autonoma

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

New politic party without notability, nor any representation. See also [16] , AfD in it.wiki Invitamia (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On it.wiki, +1 is a vote to delete and -1 is a vote to keep, for those who follow the link.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 14:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The party has some clout in Italy and its leader gained many votes in list with the Pole of Autonomy in the last European Parliament election in Lombardy. As it.Wiki is almost an unreliable source, I don't see how a deletion there can be a reason for deleting an article in en.Wiki. The party is notable and it is useful to understand the various splits of Lega Nord. --Checco (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Next year it will be present to the Lombardy regional elections, what will we do then? Obviously reopen this page. So at this point we can already leave the page. --Stefand (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a young political movement, but expressing new ideas coming from the Lombard society. It will be present to the next regional general elections and thus it shall be menetioned again in the close future. Moreover deleting political parties does not respect the freedom of expressions in my opinion. --Tbusato (talk) 20:56, 30 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 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proxio

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

No further sign of notability, no sources. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No third-party sources presented, and all I can find on google is several hundred copies of the same press release. (Most hits for Proxio are for a different company.) No notability independent of its parent company Volvo, in whose article it doesn't merit a mention; and even a redirect would be improper, since there's at least two other companies named Proxio that are at least as notable. —Korath (Talk) 14:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Could have been a WP:CSD candidate too--JForget 23:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Williams

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

what a joke — Liverpool365 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2009/06/26 16:15:12 (UTC).

  • This AfD is still set up wrong. The template above has no "View AfD" button.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hafrada

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

The topic of the article is a Hebrew word meaning "separation". A Google News search gets 0 hits ("Did you mean Hafada?"). A Google Books search gets 82 hits, most of which refer to the early 20th Century concept of separating the Jewish Agency Executive from the Israeli Govenment, a concept not referred to in the article; most of the rest are miscellaneous incidental uses. A regular Google search brings up this article followed by a large group of partisan blogs. The article's sources are mainly blogs, partisan political groups and opinion columnists, and any discernable facts or notable opinions in it would be at home in Two-state solution or Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. It's very hard to determine what exactly the article is supposed to be, but judging by the lede, it seems to be a POV fork of Two-state solution, aimed at creating an article for the fringe opinion that the two-state solution is something Israel is doing to the Palestinians.
Thus, Delete. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I didn't know about that service. I went through the 50 hits and could not find a single source from an actual media outlet that referred to hafrada in the sense the article does. Those that did were from partisan websites: electronicintifada, dissidentvoice, etc. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since, according to your google findings, Separation program (Israel) is simply a less common name for Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, wouldn't moving this article to the former make it a content fork of the latter? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if we say the disengagement plan is an example of this policy, aren't we just talking about an implementation of the old "land for peace" concept, set forth by UNSC 242 after the Six-Day War, which served as a basis for the peace treaty with Egypt, and all further peace talks? In Egypt's case, Israel removed all Israelis from Sinai, separating the populations - a necessary step in returning the land. In the disengagement case it removed Israelis from Gaza (and 4 settlements in the West Bank), and returned the land to the Palestinians, which is what they, and most of the international community, want. Removing settlers and giving back land can be seen as a sort of "separation" of the populations, but is obviously at the basis of the calls for a Palestinian State, and essential for the "land for peace" idea. This is why settlements (causing mixing of the populations, which furthers Israel's control over the territories, and reduces chances of a viable Palestinian State) are seen as so damaging to the prospects of peace. So, how is this a separate policy? What evidence is there of this being a separate concept, rather than a simple consequence/pre-requisite of "land for peace" (and so, in this case, an obvious detail of the Two state solution)? okedem (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem to keep coming around, each time with a new name. Two-state solution says "currently under discussion by the key parties to the conflict, most recently at the Annapolis Conference in November 2007." Israel's unilateral disengagement plan is from Sharon, in 2004-2005. "Separation program" seems to date from the Rabin period, around 2002. Then there's West Bank closures and Separation wall, which are more about the mechanics of the process. Plus, of course, Israel and the apartheid analogy. Maybe we do need some consolidation. We might use "Separation program (Israel)" as the generic term, and do some merging and linking with the other articles. (There are even people talking about a "three-state solution", since Hamas (Gaza) and Hezbollah (West Bank) don't get along.) --John Nagle (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off - 2002 is Sharon's period, not Rabin (who was PM 1992-1995); Hezbollah is in Lebanon, not the West Bank (which is controlled by Fatah).
You don't show that such a program (separation) exists, and don't address my points at all. "Two-state solution" is the long-standing name for this idea. Has been for many, many years. I've seen no mention of this so-called "Separation program" in Israeli or international media (and I read enough of it), whereas the "Two-state solution" is used extremely often, and is clearly the ruling concept. The point is - separation isn't the goal, and there's no program for it. Two states are the goal, and steps like the disengagement are partial realizations of it. "Separation program" isn't a new name or anything. It simply isn't used, whereas "two state solution" has been used for years, and still is (you can search for it in google news, for instance, to see that). A google news search for "two state solution" israel yields a lot of results, whereas the same search for "separation program" israel yields zero results. okedem (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems to be a classic case of applying a private/fringe interpretation to disparate issues. First off, there's no "program" by that name or to that end, as a quick search will reveal, either in English or in Hebrew. As a politically aware, newspaper reading Israeli, I can attest to encountering no use of this term or concept in Israeli media or political discourse. The only uses I've seen were with regard to specific issues, like the separation fence, or the disengagement. Never as a concept or program. Second, there's nothing unique or worthy of mention in the actions described - the fence isn't because Israel "doesn't like Arabs" or anything, but for security. Leaving Gaza is a part of returning occupied territory to the Palestinians (as they demanded). The article can't even seem to decide what its talking about - separation from Palestinians? From Israeli-Arabs? Inside the West Bank? Between Gaza and Israel? Between the West Bank and Israel? The article takes a simple Hebrew word, which doesn't imply anything, and tries as hard as it can to equate it with "apartheid" (as the quoted Palestinian, Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, a supporter of the One-State "solution" is trying to do with regard to Olmert's plan to withdraw from the West Bank). At most, "hafrada" is a term used by some political activists, mostly Palestinian, with unclear meaning. okedem (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are explicit references to that phrase.[20]. Also try looking for "separation" and "Israel", which will bring up material on the subject, plus some other stuff. Yitzhak Rabin's slogan "Us Here, Them There."[21] also expressed the concept. --John Nagle (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two problems here. One is that you're advocating creating an article on a word-pair because you found the word-pair in a single non-RS and because you interpret a phrase by Yitzhak Rabin to refer to it. The second is that you assume, without explaining why, that the content currently in the article Hafrada would be the proper content with which to fill such an article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Nja247 07:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kidson Force

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

I have nominated this page for deletion because I believe it was created in error. The creator was referring to Kisdon Force in the same area on the River Swale, and I believe that Kidson Force does not exist. Mick Knapton (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It gets several hits from Google including Yorkshire Walks so appears to be correct rather than Kisdon Force which is further east. Keith D (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK Keith, I think it is a typo in that article, as the photo labelled "Kidson Force near Keld" is actually of Kisdon Force (I've been there). Its a similar photo to the top one in the Wikipedia article for Kisdon Force taken by me showing the main cascade and the top one in the background. However if you think Kidson Force exists I respect your decision but it is certainly not marked on the large scale Ordnance Survey maps. Mick Knapton (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the above: ::That co-ordinate for Kidson Force is almost 500 metres South West of the River Swale on the B6270 road near Thorns Farm, how can it be a waterfall on the River Swale with a co-ordinate of almost 500 metres away from that River. Try looking on Ordnances Survery Get a Map. Mick Knapton (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Using the coord link on the page, then following the Geograph link, it brings us here], just to the west of a small stream where I'd suggest that the waterfall is. Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite an interesting link that, it shows six photographs of Kisdon Force and one of "Kidston Force" which is obviously a picture of Kisdon Force. Why does the article say a "Small waterfall on the River Swale" if its on a small side stream. The photograph in the article does not look like a small side stream. Why not just admit it that its a spelling mistake. Ever been to Swaledale, I go there regularly. Mick Knapton (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may have driven through Swaledale at some point. I was going by the coords given in the separate articles. I accept that I may be wrong here, needs a local expert. I'll ask at WP Yorkshire. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the interesting discussion Mjroots. My final point at this time, is that if it does exist and is not shown on the large scale Ordnance Survey map it could be deemed as not notable and could be deleted on Notability. All the other waterfalls on the Swale around Keld are marked, even the small East Gill Force is marked as a "Falls". Regards Mick Knapton (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those entries are based on our List of waterfalls of the United Kingdom (which includes both names because of the existence of the article we're discussing here). All that the EyePlorer page suggests is confusion on Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My Bad !!!! :( Hitro 16:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a band that is not notable. That the subject does not meet the primary notability criterion, i.e. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", means it does not satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Red Hot Nightmare

My Red Hot Nightmare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is not a notable band. I searched for reliable sources mentioning them, and could only come up with one minor mention in Billboard:[22] Fences&Windows 18:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Maybe... I need persuading that the members are independently notable, even if some of the members do have Wikipedia pages. Fences&Windows 19:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think TenPoundHammer's comments also need to be taken into account. Has the band actually done enough to be considered notable? Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 21:50, 19 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, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Keep The User:DreamGuy posted, on my Talk Page a message 'advising' me not to waste my time contributing to this AFD discussion (to which he is contributing) with commentaries like 'Enough notable' and so. I want to have the opinion of WP users about this. Indeed contributions are to be justified, but in the case of My Red Hot Nightmare the claimed of the lack of any sound reason to have an article is quite rebutted by the 1 480 google hits !![23] Rirunmot (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Google hits is not the same as notability... I probably have 1500 Google hits, I don't expect anyone to write an article about me. Fences&Windows 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think Hammer is correct, this band isn't actually notable. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The bar for article space should include at least having done something or another. Just trivia, which fails WP:NOT. The part of WP:MUSIC that might apply is pushing things, especially in light of the lack of any sound reason to have an article. DreamGuy (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bunch of guys formed a band, covered a Clash song, didn't work, moved on. (I'm sure we've all done that, I know I have). They may be individually notable, but this project deserves a mention in their individual articles, if that. Article claims that they are working on new material, but this isn't borne out by any news coverage, last mention was 2006.  pablohablo. 23:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Thomas Abbott

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

Doesn't seem nearly notable enough. WP:NOTE. Hhe is known for a single poem that was only mentioned in an article about another author's work. There are no mainstream reviews of this book and it never made any sales lists. The award he was given is not sufficiently notable. President of your university's poetry society is not particularly notable, either. Previously an AfD was withdrawn, but the reasoning was obviously shaky. Simply because a group of authors does not get enough attention from outside sources is certainly not a reason for inclusion. If the original author wants better coverage of Clutag Press, then perhaps this content should be part of that article. The author himself is clearly not notable enough. A quick google search of "Paul Thomas Abbott" gives only 175 results, many of which are automated Wikipedia references. This is only secondary evidence, but is pretty powerful. Hampton (talk) 02:18, 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 --JForget 23:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thandiakkal

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

Delete unsourced one-liner about a surname with no indication of why it's notable. Surnames are not inherently notable. We're not the Indian telephone directory. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:10, 23 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, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

&Delete Just as a name, it's not notable. If there were several notable people with the name, the it could become a List of people with surname Jones article, but not yet. Priyanath talk 02:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The two deletes I agree with. Nja247 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester White

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

Non-notable, further evidence of finding reliable sources. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is purely promotional and contains no encyclopedic information about the organization in question. . .Rcawsey (talk) 19:33, 3 July 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) 00:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul's Missionary College

St. Paul's Missionary College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school, no references found. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was evaluating it as a secondary school/high school- I was just hoping for more solid confirmation that it exists. tedder (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Ah, ok. I've added some more credible sources to the AfD, someone can try to use these in the article, I'm not sure I can. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this page was created less than a day ago so it is way too early to be making judgements as to whether it will be possible to establish notability. I see no reason to depart from the practice that, with sufficient research, secondary schools are likely to have enough reliable sources to demonstrate notability and this article should be given time. TerriersFan (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox and the Hound (disambiguation)

The Fox and the Hound (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unnecessary disambiguation for a novel and its film adaptation; already better handled by the {{for}} template at the top of the top of the novel article and an appropriate normal link in the leads of the two films. Making users click an extra step on the novel is rather silly and bad usability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And? Just because ru-wiki is doing it doesn't mean it should be done here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - unneeded dab page per nom and JHunterJ. 19:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a bad thing, and an A for effort on the part of the creator, but this is one of those things that don't really need a DAB. The sequel to the first film is distinctive enough to not require it (it will be distinctively called its sequel), which leaves remaining the book and the movie - which themselves can be connected through hat notes. The sequel can also have a link from the page of its predecessor film. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymon Randolph Staton

Raymon Randolph Staton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy, but what is actually said in the article is not notable--claims credit for products produced by companies where he worked, without indication of his actual role in creating or developing them. No sources in the article besides a single patent [24] whose importance is doubtful. I can't find anything else, in G, GScholar, GNews, or GBooks with or without the middle name or initial. DGG (talk) 13:03, 30 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhanshu ji maharaj

Sudhanshu ji maharaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Borderline promotional of the subject's philosophy and philosophical centers. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:50, 30 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) 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 04:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kennedy (Programmer)

Adam Kennedy (Programmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

contested prod, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Does not pass WP:BIO RadioFan (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have added further information which I believe improves the article, as well as media reference by Larry Wall (creator of perl) as quoted in Australian ComputerWorld. Seems unfair to refute Adam's contributions to the Perl community, which include hundreds of useful modules that provide building blocks for greater things (several of which are mentioned).
Per the WP:AUTHOR criteria, I think he should qualify as being widely cited by his peers and known for originating significant techniques (eg. PPI's novel approach to parsing Perl 5). His contributions are also a substantial part of the collective work which is Perl's CPAN repository.
Stennie (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete While I have no doubt that he has contributed to the PERL community, he is lacking any "significant coverage" by mainstream media. This guideline was set so that we do not have to set arbitrary guidelines each time notability comes into question Corpx (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As per WP:AUTHOR, Adam Kennedy is regularly cited by his peers. He is responsible for creating a significant and well-known work: Strawberry Perl, one of the dominant distributions of Perl under Windows. Adam's development of the PPI framework allowed for the creation of Perl::Critic, which is considered to be of outstanding value to the Perl community. Adam has more than 200 distributions on the CPAN, making him the world's second most prolific Perl author by module count. Adam is a regular speaker at OSCON, OSDC, and YAPC technical conferences around the world. --Pjf (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adam Kennedy is cited in several important technical magazines (ZDNet, Linux Magazine, Computer World), especially for Strawberry Perl, which is more than appreciated by Windows Perl users. Strawberry Perl and its derivatives are an important project because they provide a way to use the dynamic language Perl on the Windows platform as seamlessly as on Unix systems, and allow to easily use the CPAN (which wasn't the case with ActivePerl). Adam also started the PPI project which goal was deemed impossible by more notorious Perl hackers. This module is now the foundation for other important modules and programs, namely Perl::Critic and Padre. Maddingue (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have moved the page from Adam Kennedy (Programmer) to Adam Kennedy (programmer) per style guidelines. Should the result of this discussion be a deletion, the closing admin should check for pages linking to the old title also. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Halo 2#Campaign. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik skull

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

Contested PROD. Article is about a specific item in a computer game, the item's description, and the item's location -- a clear infringement of WP:NOTGUIDE. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:33, 30 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 per A7 by KillerChihuahua Cheers, I'mperator 12:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTServ

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

direct copy from http://otfans.net/wiki/index.php/OTServ noq (talk) 12:11, 30 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 --JForget 23:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let Go (Aaron Carter song)

Let Go (Aaron Carter song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

contested prod, no indication that this article meets WP:NSONGS RadioFan (talk) 12:08, 30 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. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hemingbrough United

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

Amateur village football team that plays only at the (notional) fifteenth level of the English football league system, well below the established bar for notability. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 30 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. (X! · talk)  · @034  ·  23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grapefruit—Juicy Fruit

Grapefruit—Juicy Fruit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

contested redirect (to album article). Doesn't meet WP:NSONGS, no indication of charting or awards. RadioFan (talk) 11:41, 30 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) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not finding chart history for this song on Billboard's website and the reference given in the article is to a blog, not a reliable source.--RadioFan (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The covers you mention dont do much to establish notability here either, WP:NSONGS asks for covers from multiple notable artists.--RadioFan (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you search Billboard's site with a song title, you can access summary chart info for specific songs for a specific week without a membership (you are correct that an expensive membership is required to see the entire chart for a particular week). That archive goes back to at least 1950. The fact that no chart information is coming up for any search combination I've tried on this title leads me to believe that it didnt chart as is claimed by the fans sites in question and that incorrect info has spread as new fans sites copy this information from others. Fan sites are not known for their fact checking.--RadioFan (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I'd go for a redirect or merge (sans chart statement) into the album article. Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because the information sought for wasn't found at one particular source doesn't mean the other source is unreliable. It's common knowledge you need a membership to access. Obviously not all records are shown on the free trial. What's the point of that? Furthermore, did anybody think to contact the cited sources which supposedly "aren't reliable"? Perhaps they could steer you in the direction to convince you of reliability? Probably wouldn't be good enough anyway. Well in that case, you got a long list of Beatles songs to delete since they didn't chart and have articles out in wikipedia. I mean, that's what you're here to do, right? You're not here to help expand, you're here to throw away. RadioFan claimed earlier that s/he couldn't find any charting information. I show charting information, and it's not good enough. What a joke. Did you ever consider maybe putting in a little more effort than to delete stuff? Obviously you're not researching hard enough to find notability when it's pretty easy to find. When the work is done for you, it's not good enough. These standards are laughable. I can't believe this is like a city counsel meeting. You guys must feel really important. Geeky Randy (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa there - One, sources don't get to "convince" us that they're reliable -- they either pass WP:RS or they don't. Two, the onus isn't on AFD discussion participants to run down reliable sources that support your claims -- everything in the article needs to be verifiable. Three, the smartassery and outright accusations that we're here to "throw away" things is an absolutely unacceptable violation of both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). RadioFan (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Book (Jung)

Red Book (Jung) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

contested redirect (to author's page), no indication that this book passes WP:NB RadioFan (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have created this article and I believe it should stay for the following reasons:

  • The book is mentioned on many sources and returns about 30,000 results on google.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Red+book%22+jung&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

  • There is already a spanish article on the subject which has been created two months ago and was not nominated for deletion

User:Arthur_B(talk) 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planning planet

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

contested prod, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party references. Nearly all provided references are primary sources and those that aren't dont mention this company, RadioFan (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Is it Possible to get an extension on the deletion date? I can get a mention on other websites, but I need some extra time. could I get an extra week? Piers1123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piers1123 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Notability needs to be verified by independent, reliable sources. See WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS for the applicable policy. Nothing comes up on the relevant google searches, so I doubt that reliable sources will emerge.--Talain (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. There's no indication that this specialized trade website meets either the business or website notability guidelines, but since it's obvious advertising, lawyering about notability is beside the point. The bulk of the article would appear to be vanity resumes of the principals: largest database of planners and project managers ... the number increasing at an average rate of one new member every 45 minutes.... over twenty years experience in the area of technology and software development.... twenty years of planning and project management experience.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the grounds in which you propose said things. However, if the subject does meet criteria in the future, seeing as the general intent is for deletion, would it be possible to re-make the page? As far as I understand it should be. Piers1123

  • Comment. Yes you can, but you will have to address the lack of independent, reliable secondary source coverage that comprises the concern of this AfD. If you just recreate it without improving it then it will be speedily deleted per WP:G4--Talain (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you, I've created the subpage. Thanks guys. Piers1123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piers1123 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragoon X Omega and Dragoon X Omega II

Dragoon X Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Dragoon X Omega II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

These articles do not establish notability through citation of reliable sources. Also, Dragoon X Omega II copypastes content from an external site, http://datacrystal.org/wiki/Dragoon_X_Omega_II . Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Hold on I'll see what I can do about getting articles that prove notability. I can get into contact with Sliver X -- if anyone knows of articles about DXO, it'll be him. If I can't provide any good ones, then I won't complain about the deletion (though I will die a little bit inside). Flonnezilla (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nevermind. I haven't been able to talk to Sliver X yet, and I've decided that I don't want to bug him about it. Go ahead and delete the article; if I get some good sources at some point I'll recreate it. Fair enough? Flonnezilla (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on I am just want to expanded it, even I am not good in English, I am just copy from copypastes and reedit it the article. If you wish to delete it, just delete it. Sorry about that. Woad85 (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bouwe Jan Hak

Bouwe Jan Hak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is a hoax. No player by that name played One-Day International cricket for the Netherlands or county cricket. Jevansen (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Netherlands competed in the 1996 World Cup, but otherwise didn't have ODI status. So 'he' would have been 46 by the time his country first played ODIs and even then he couldn't have appeared in more than five. Not a very well thought out hoax. Jevansen (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Obviously a hoax, but in relation to your comment on age, Nolan Clarke was 47 when he made his ODI debut for the Dutch! Andrew nixon (talk) 12:34, 30 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. Essentially split down the middle and its 2nd nomination. Give it a rest for a while or work on the article to fix issues. Nja247 07:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Senior G8 leader

AfDs for this article:
Senior G8 leader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, original research imho. Moreover, the article doesn't make clear what's the relevance of this role. Jaqen (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against deletion

1) Sources -- Most of the information on this list is based on readily verifiable information. I will add references.

2) Relevance -- What is the relevance of "List of State Leaders by Date"? Of "List of current United States governors by denomination"? List of "Deans of the United States Senate"? All of these have no practical "relevance", so to speak, but merely serve as references for those interested in a particular subject (e.g., journalists, writers, students, commentators). A quick Google search for "Senior G8 leader" should indicate how often that title is cited and used in other articles.

3) No "quick trigger" reflex -- As a matter of policy, we should be careful not to be so hasty as to remove articles such as this one: it's been around for a while (over 2 years), has been edited frequently by a number of commentators, is the only compilation of its kind, and is a topic of international interest. Wikipedia policy has been and should be to remove articles only when they are narrowly focused, edited infrequently, and do not have a long history -- in other words, when they are so insignificant and/or personal to the author that they are clearly not of general interest. It is dangerous to be so rash and remove broad-based, community-edited, general interest articles for no real reason.

Memworking (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Memworking[reply]

1) I'd be happy of that!
2) 218 results... State leaders do have relevance, G8 leaders obviously too. The problem is that it is totally unclear what's the specific relevance of the senior G8 leader. Should we create also Junior G8 leader?
3) More that 2 years and still the article has no sources and no information about the relevance of the role... Anyway, there's time to discuss. --Jaqen (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above. The Terminator (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a helpful list.Biophys (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. First of all the name is horribly misleading. It implies some sort of additional powers that the person has when all it is is the longest serving leader in the G8. The previous AfD indicated some sources that seemed to show that the length of service was a factor in an "order of precedence" at G8 summits. The best source I can find for this seems to be here [30], which is confusing because Tony Blair is listed first, not Jacques Chirac (who was the longest serving leader at the time). I presume this is because it was the UKs turn at hosting the summit so they were automatically at the top of the pile as it were. Importantly, I can't see any sources that particularly explain this 'precedence' and there is no evidence that it actually affects anything. Looking through the photographs from G8 summits it doesn't seem to come into it with the order they stand (another point from the previous AfD). The other sources that were quoted in the previous AfD all just note that a particular person has been the longest serving - given the amount of news around G8 summits it's not surprising that this gets mentioned occasionally, but it's not exactly extensive coverage. I can just about see the benefit in the list, as it is easily verifiable information that may be of interest to some. (Incidentally, looking at the traffic for the page it went up about 10 times once it was listed for AfD! - [31]). I suggest that the article is renamed to List of longest serving G8 leaders. Quantpole (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There do not seem to be significant sources to support this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Iron (golf). \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Types of irons

Types of irons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Iron (golf) covers the subject already. It is doubtful that sufficient content exists to warrant a separate article. Indeed this article does not really expand on its parent. wjematherbigissue 10:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To me, despite being an avid golfer, types of irons doesn't automatically lead me to think iron (golf), but also iron (appliance), fetters, etc. and as such maybe Iron_(disambiguation) would be a better redirect target. wjematherbigissue 13:26, 30 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 Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ringmasters of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus

AfDs for this article:
Ringmasters of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a long-rambling list of repeated names, which appears pretty indiscriminate to me. What should be kept could be summarised in two lines in the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus article Ohconfucius (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the article about the circus. Although this poorly-executed table can be fixed (note: you can say "1871-78: Dan Costello" instead of Dan Costello Dan Costello Dan Costello Dan Costello Dan Costello Dan Costello Dan Costello Dan Costello), once it's fixed, it would fit into a paragraph. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but in prose form as Mandsford suggests, and with proper sources. Little value as a table, doesn't need a separate article.--RadioFan (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge Selectively merge. Wikipedia does not need a listing of everyone who held any significant job in every notable organization, because Wikipedia is not a directory and should not contain indiscriminate information. If references talk about how this or that ringmaster was important in the operation or development of the circus, then that is a logical part of the article about the circus. It could be argued that without the ringmaster, the show would not go on. But likewise, without the cook, the musical director, the roustabouts, or the locomotive engineer the show would not go on, and I do not expect to see an article listing every locomotive driver or head cook. Edison (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try to think of the ringmaster of a circus as being similar to the conductor of an orchestra, the producer of a Broadway production, the coach of a professional sports team, or for that matter, the key person in any organization. The ringmaster has somewhat more responsibilities for the show than the average employee. Mandsford (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dont think the above comments question the importance of the position. The questions is, given the information available, is a separate article necessary. I, and other editors are not convinced that it is.--RadioFan (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without music, a circus performance would be dreary. But I question the need for a list of every band director in the history of every notable circus. Similarly, I do not see the need to list every employee who held that position in the main article. There are many types of notable organizations which do not have a complete listing of every functionary of importance equal to the ringmaster. An orchestra conductor is much more likely to have reviews with substantial coverage of how he conducted the orchestra. Likewise a coach of a notable team or a producer of a notable show will have articles about him. Where is such independent coverage of each ringmaster? He seems more like the stadium announcer at a (US) football game. Those who have references, like Dan Costello [32], should be mentioned in the main article about the circus and perhaps should have their own articles, if there is as much printed about them as Costello[33]. But being in Wikipedia is not an inherent right that comes with the top hat and whistle. Edison (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I am not opposed to a well-executed merger. This list is not indiscriminate. Miami33139 (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment If "ringmasters" of the Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Circus are entitled to inherent notability, and a listing of their names is not "indiscriminate information," does that extend to their counterpart ringmasters at the Hoxie Brothers and the Carson Barnes circuses, who to my eye were just as skilled and just as important to the performance? Edison (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This stuff is perfect for RB B&B's website, not wikipedia. I fail to see why should keep this article when there is no notability established for ringmasters of this particular circus Corpx (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the consensus is that this doesn't merit an article on its own. As for whether the ringmaster stuff is mentioned in the article about the circus, that's no concern of mine. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and the content of an article is based upon what the most recent editor does. Mandsford (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This closure was quite difficult, as Budd has represented his country. However, the main issue is whether futsal is a sport in which representing your country is noteworthy. Had Budd participated at a futsal world cup or European championship, it may have been different, but to date he has not. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Budd

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

Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league/competition. Also playing international futsal, doesn't pass any notability guidelines. The only source provided is from The Football Association which is reporting on one of it's own teams, no secondary verifiable sources are provided. Since it's last nom over a year ago, no edits of any substance have been made - only statiscal updates. --Jimbo[online] 08:18, 30 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. Nja247 07:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Spaniolo

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

DELETE due to an extreme lack of notability. I find it rather ridiculous that this WP:BLP article is citing a self-published book and a myspace page for sustenance. JBsupreme (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Agree with nom. I see no notability Corpx (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC) :This interview with the guy does provide some coverage, so I'm changing my vote to Neutral Corpx (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has that been confirmed by a reliable secondary source? What chart did the album/single chart on? Corpx (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The positions are confirmed by Allmusic which doesn't require a secondary source, but yes it is also confirmed by Billboard. The album charted on the Billboard 200, Top Heatseekers, Top Independent Albums, and Top Rap Albums. Juggalobrink (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good enough for me. Keep Corpx (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nja247 07:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United We Serve

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

Unclear of any notability claim; this seems to be just an incidental web page that collects information on government volunteer programs LotLE×talk 06:37, 30 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) 00:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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+Redirect to the City of Holroyd - Peripitus (Talk) 12:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holroyd Youth Services

Holroyd Youth Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG. a non notable suburban organisation. very limited third party coverage [34]. only reference in current article is its own myspace page which is not preferred as per WP:SPS. LibStar (talk) 06:36, 30 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 00:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nja247 07:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Geiss

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

This article is unreferenced and a possible hoax. Google returns no references to a James Geiss associated with whaling, except for Wikipedia mirrors ([35]). Google Scholar ([36]) and Google News also turn up no mentions of this person. I've also been unable to find any references in Factiva to substantiate any of the article contents. His mention in the Whaling article was added by a SPA with no other edits (diff). Suggest deletion as either a hoax or a person who doesn't meet WP's notability guidelines. Muchness (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Transwiki The nominator is correct that google is only able to find reference to this name in wikipedia mirrors, but that in itself isn't evidence of a hoax. Regardless, there are no citations or evidence that the individual existed so it should be either deleted until references can be found, or transwikied to the creators sandbox. -Markeer 12:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has no references at all and apparently no one can verify that James Geiss even existed. I looked up one of the references listed in the Bjorn Sigurdsson article and discuss what I found on that article's talk page. I couldn't find Geiss in the book's index or in the relevant chapter of the book. I doubt he even existed.-Schnurrbart (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a hoax, and a long-lived one at that. It lasted just over 3 years before it was caught. I think that might qualify it for the list of notable hoaxes - it'd be towards the top. - Bootstoots (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the WP:ATHLETE failure (Shamrock Rovers' own website confirms that the league in question is not fully professional). пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David O'Connor (footballer)

AfDs for this article:
David O'Connor (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE and no sources provided to pass WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:08, 30 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 due to WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Osbourne

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

Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE and no sources provided to satisfy WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:05, 30 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. (X! · talk)  · @279  ·  05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Markoff

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

I was reading an article on a different murderer which was nominated for deletion. The arguments are varied but they all really point to deletion of this article. WP:N/CA was cited in another article. It really applies here. N/CA says "They are notable for something beyond the crime itself" NO, FAILS.. N/CA says "The victim is a renowned world figure, or immediate family member of a renowned world figure, including but not limited to politicians or worldwide celebrities." NO, MISERABLY FAILS. N/CA says "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual" NO, FAILS, robbery and murder is very common.

BLP1E was cited in another article. Philip is a one event person.

Another reason cited in another article was that this article is just about the murder and should either be deleted or merged into the murder of miss --- article.

For some reason, this article violates every known reason for an article. The only reason that could be used is that a lot of news mentioned it after the murder, but that would maybe support the murder article, but not the accused murderer article. Also some people may hate Jews or future doctors or hate Northeners or hate white people or hate possible Republican nuts who attend Karl Rove speechs, and want an article to show how bad White Northerner Jewish Doctor possible Republicans are but this is not a reason for having an article. For this reason, anyone who writes about racial articles (pro white or pro nazi), North/South/Confederacy articles (pro southern), Israeli/Gaza articles (anti Israeli), pro holistic or chiropractor articles or negative articles about Republican or positive Democratic articles should not vote because of conflict of interest. Amthernandez (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Murder of Julissa Brisman, the only reason he is notable. Jpatokal (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment. I was brought here by a rather strange message on my talk page, which looks a bit like subtle canvassing, so I hope Amthernandez has warned the people who voted in the earlier deletion debate, the person who created the page and those who edited the page a few times as well. I have my own idea about whether this article is necessary on Wikipedia just like that, but in view of the message on my talk page and Amthernandez' handling of the Deletion Debate on Maria Belen Chapur I think I am going to swallow his WP:BEANS and say that I cannot vote - as a registered participant at the anti-birfer blog Politijab (North hate white people, Gaza, Democratic - take your pick)--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is charged with more than one crime, as is documented in the articleand has had substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. WP:BLP1E does not apply. Edison (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you read WP:BLP1E it also provides for people who recieve massive attention for a single event which is the case with Philip Markoff who recieved a large amount of lasting national attention and some international attention. It is also important to consider the crime as a whole and not just boil it down to simple robbery and murder. The crimes Markoff commited were unual and represent a new type of crime in the modern age of the internet. I'm not sure what you are getting at with the discussion of political bias in the last part of the nom but it is imporant to assume WP:GOODFAITH on the part of editors. Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep While ONEEVENT is a good point, I think this guy's actions were covered thoroughly by the national media and I think that he has long term notability Corpx (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Is this a joke? BLP1E allows if massive attention for a single event. But this article is not about a single event, but a string of events. And I'm having a hard time deciphering what the nominator is even talking about but it sounds like someone is trying to use this AFD to make a WP:POINT about some unrelated issue. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly a straight delete is not the right way to go with this article. At the last afd I gave the opinion that the name should reflect the events and not the name of the perp. However I think that ship may have sailed.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator accuses all editors who want to keep this article of being prejudiced and tries to impose swingeing COI rules on this discussion. I would argue that this nomination totally fails to assume good faith in other editors and is thus invalid. Additionally, the circumstances of this case are certainly unusual, and Markoff meets the WP:GNG. Fences&Windows 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further, this is a nomination that appears to be a reaction to the deletion of Clara Harris (criminal), which the nominator started:[37]. Fences&Windows 20:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge This is an example of the debate of what we want Wikipedia to be. If it is to be a respected encyclopedia, then this article should be deleted because it's just tabloid journalism. If Wikipedia wants to be the hip depository of the latest internet gossip, then the article should be a keep.
If one wants to follow the rules, the merging the article to the Murder of Jessica Brisman is the right thing to do. Markoff is not an accused serial murderer. He's probably just a robber with gambling debts that killed someone by accident. Some of the cited rules like BLP1E and NCA support not having a separate article.
If we look into the future and see how notable this person is in 2019, we will find that he's no more notable than the murderers of 1999. One murderer, convicted in 1999, is Tim Masters but you'll see that his article is a redirect to the murder article. Other much talked about murders of 1999 are little known now, as will probably be the case in 2019 for Markoff.
The most popular thing to do would be to keep but a logical thing to do would be to merge the article with the Murder of Brisman article and see in a few years time if Markoff is on the same level as criminals like John Hickley, Jr. User F203 (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's just notable enough to be included. It's not a badly-written article, and has some decient referencing (I think). I think a merge would be possible, but rather awkward as the article is quite long as it is now (or so I remember). He did receive massive attention nationally, and I remember some international stuff. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 21:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Internet homicide and Murder of Julissa Brisman. I really do doubt whether this bloke will have lasting notability, and the attention afforded to him by the blood-thirsty media outlets was as a result of a fairly standard crime of murder. The media hysteria due to the Craigslist post qualifies him for a mention somewhere, but given the acronyms WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP, merging seems like the sensible solution. I would also like to point out that just because you saw him on the news when it happens does note make the AfD about him a 'joke'. Also, charged with more than one crime doesn't make him exempt from WP:BLP1E. The policy covers people who are only notable for one event, and his standard robbery charges are not anything that would've resulted in a Wikipedia page. He got attention for the murder, his article was written due to the attention of the murder, not the binding and robbery of the robbery of an escort. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Orting, Washington. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orting, WA Flash Flood of 2006

Orting, WA Flash Flood of 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This flood didn't kill anybody, and seems of negligible importance. See WP:NOT#NEWS. No sources. Deprodded. Abductive (talk) 04:50, 30 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 vandalism. ... discospinster talk 12:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Garnet

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

WP:HOAX No sources, a Google search turns up nothing. Eric444 (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Roughly Cut (I) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Costume (Richie Garnet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roughly Cut (II) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Garnet Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pefectly Clear: A Collection of Country Gospel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jessie (Richie Garnet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Untouched (Richie Garnet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Shaolin Monkeys (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment. This looks quite a bit similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmet Fitzgerald. I'm not really sure, if it's that one, because I only had a very brief look before the page was deleted, but it is similar to an AfD that closed pretty quickly. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll admit it; I am damn impressed with the chutzpah of these articles. The template, complete with two links to actual songs by an actual artist really helps bring the whole thing together. Entirely made up, there's nothing on google or anywhere else, so Speedy Delete and a suggestion that if the author could put this sort of effort into making real articles he'd be a hell of an editor.--Talain (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone has rather unhelpfully removed the BLP violations, so now the article does not reflect how the SPA had left it. I still think it should be deleted, as the article now says even less how notable this chappy is. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:32, 30 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 00:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiyyath-ul-Salaf

Jamiyyath-ul-Salaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by suspicious SPAs; the deprodding was reverted multiple times by trustworthy people but it won't kill us to have a debate just on the off chance one of these users was merely a sockpuppet and not actually banned. Deletion concern is lack of available sourcing - no news, scholarly, or books hits from Google. I say weak delete, weak because as a foreign-language topic I can believe sourcing might exist in another language. Mangojuicetalk 04:15, 30 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 a probable hoax. If anyone can find any reliable sources to state otherwise, I'll restore it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ito Pau

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

I declined the PROD on this because I know nothing about the subject — the article claims that he's a player for a fully professional Brazilian football club, and it provides a photo, but the PROD stated that "Hoax. There is no such Santos FC player, or any other Brazilian soccer player with that name". Because I know so little of Brazilian football, I won't delete by PROD; however, unless we can find references for him playing professionally, he fails WP:ATHLETE and all other notability criteria. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 30 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JESS3

JESS3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is questionable. Fails WP:CORP. Was PRODed, but contested, so it comes here. Also worth pointing out is that the author is affiliated with the organization (per his user page), so if this is kept it will most likely need to be re-written. T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 04:15, 30 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 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I am the author of this page and I would like to defend its inclusion on Wikipedia. Regardless of my conflict of interest, I have included numerous sources and I believe JESS3 is worthy of an article on the site. The company has had several high profile clients over the years. In addition, it has been nominated for a Webby Award. I can include another reference, a link to a story about JESS3 and one of its projects in Communication Arts, if that would help support this article. I'm reluctant to do so because of the discussion regarding my conflict of interest. -Maxjammett, 7/7/09
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 00:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in Virginia, 2012

United States Senate election in Virginia, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It is now four years before the election will take place. This is a page focused only on speculation (because the news sources won't cover this race for a few more years.) We have no sources saying Webb or Davis are running for the seat. Also other similar senate races have not been introduced yet (the exception being Connecticut where there is activity going on and polling this early in the race) BrianY (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the Dodd race (2010). Lieberman is up for reelection in 2012 (the article I was talking about) and that article is created. But unlike Virginia, there has been polling and news on that race because of the possibility of Lieberman getting ousted by a democrat or Lieberman switching back to the Democratic party to win reelection. BrianY (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I've got to take a look at that. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:57, 30 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. toyed with no consensus but the argument that the articled meets MUSIC#6 hasn't really been refuted and deletion arguments are based more on GNG then MUSIC Spartaz Humbug! 09:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter (punk band)

Baxter (punk band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Troy's Bucket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lost Voices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Baxter (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The band has only released one full-length album, is signed to non-notable independent record labels, and has not had any of its songs chart on a major music chart. In addition, the band is not covered significantly in reliable sources. It fails WP:Notability (music) Timmeh 03:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I dont find the notable connection. WP:NOTADVOCATE. The artist referred to dont seem to quite reach up to notable so far. I did find one australian web news article reference. Tim McIlrath -article has lots of references, but mostly about gig dates, and do not really make for documentation on notable events, or musicians. Mindless lists of band members changing or tour and recording dates do not meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability. Promo material belongs on other sites. Casimirpo (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Crime Association

Anti-Crime Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability. The article, I believe, is written by someone with conflict of interest as shown by the contribution history of article creator. Also, the entire article reads like an advertisement. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:02, 30 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 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Say Anything (album)

Say Anything (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:HAMMER Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 02:51, 30 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. Poor timing. –xenotalk 03:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OxiClean

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

HI! TEN POUND HAMMER HERE FOR OXICLEAN! ARE YOU TIRED OF SET-IN ARTICLES THAT SHOW NO SIGN OF NOTABILITY? SUBJECTS THAT SHOW NO SIGN OF COVERAGE IN RELIABLE THIRD PARTY SOURCES? THEN YOU NEED ARTICLES FOR DELETION!

(Seriously, I !voted keep in the last afd, but the sources are no good, and all I could find was press releases.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep I'm not sure how this nationally-marketed product couldn't be considered notable. If deleted Wikipedia would probably the only entity in the USA that doesn't know what it is. The article content seems mostly factual as well - rather than lobbying for deletion why not spend time to add some references if that is the concern?--Rich0 (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being "nationally marketed" is not a criterion for inclusion—rather the criterion is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Bongomatic 03:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones

Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of Billboard Hot Country Songs chart achievements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are nothing but gigantic lists of unsourced, mostly unverifiable trivia, far afoul of WP:IINFO. Every single piddling detail is laid out in an excruciatingly long list, of interest to only Joel Whitburn and chart-geeks like me. Note that the Pop 100 list is also at AFD for similar claims. (I wouldn't mind mentioning, say, the longest-running #1 at the hot 100 page, but most of this is nothing but indiscriminate info.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment→ For starters, how about the fact that the list in not unsourced? References are provided at the bottom of the page from the various entries written by Whitburn, Billboard etc. I am almost 100 per cent sure that inline citations could be found for this article, because the individual articles for the songs contain respective sources. The article was written this way because editors thought it distasteful to have a note/source after each sentence in every single line. The editor who nominated the article claims that the info is "unverifiable", a characterization I totally oppose. They are verifiable! The list is neutral. He claims that only Whitburn or "chart geeks" would find the information useful? Why? How does he know this? And, the nominator brazenly emphasizes that this article/list is being deleted because other lists of similar nature are being deleted. The situation is totally different. This is the main singles chart in American music. Chart achievements for component charts like the Pop 100 etc do not carry the same level of notability.

The deletion policy states that reasons for deletion includes, among others, articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. Give editors, like myself, the chance to improve the sourcing. None of the guidelines outlined at WP is not provide evidence for the deletion of this page. It can't necessarily be considered "fan cruft", because the subject is of wide interest to a large group of people interested in music, as per the official website, the third party websites that I'll find, the numerous books written on the subject. The article needs to be cleaned up and needs improved sourcing. It does not need to be deleted. Orane (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment for the record, when I spun the article off, it was quite a bit shorter. It's not the easiest article to keep "pruned", as stuff gets added constantly  :-) - eo (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment→ again, Kww, we could simply clean up the article, remove the excess, and source it. Orane (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that these articles are trivia magnets. There are only a few statistics worth keeping, and, properly pruned and trimmed, a discussion of them can be kept in a parent article. Splitting them out invites uncontrollable growth.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment, well, again, if the consensus is to keep this article, I will be more than happy to work with whomever to decide which of the billion items should stay or go. I remove stuff a lot which many times leads to "why did you delete my item?" conversations, but if more than one person was keeping an eye on preventing it from becoming excessive, it would really help. - eo (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I agree; this article can be maintained in the public interest through patrol and discussion on which items are notable and which can be removed per non-notability. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]] (P.S. added on July 1 — eo and a few others have done a good job of patrol).[reply]
  • Keep This is of encyclopedic interest, and not really a candidate for merging back to the article about the Billboard Hot 100 in general; in addition, the article cites to verifiable sources (such as Joel Whitburn's well-known books). Although a page dealing with the 40 or so songs that had been #1 on the Pop 100 is up for deletion, this article bears no resemblance to that piece of crap. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - indiscriminate trivia, laundry lists, many entries unreferenced thus notability not established. Artyline (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Struck comments of banned user. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is useful information and like the other articles about artists' charts and statistics, should remain.--Don1962 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per eo, this should probably be in the Hot 100 page, but cant due to length.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Entries are referenced; note that at the bottom of article there is a bibiliography (which is used for items without inline citations); several items have inline citations. Article's edit page also has hidden note discouraging "indiscriminiate trivia" (e.g., miniscule trivia, e.g., the back-to-back No. 1 covers of the Tommy James songs in the Hot 100 stats article); patrol can be used to expunge inappropriate items. I would be open to conversations about improving this article (along with the afd nominator), which I think should happen before further afd discussion should the article be kept. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Delete This is just a bunch of trivial information throw together. I dont think we should be tracking the movement of every album on a music chart. Bunch of a trivia suited for a site other than an encyclopedia Corpx (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This article does not nor never did "track the movement of every album on a music chart" (which indeed would be suited for a totally different site, such as Billboard). On the contrary, these articles — at least the country version — has records information organized by artist accomplishments, song accomplishments and album accomplishments ... not merely information randomly thrown together at one's whim but an article that is presented in a readable, easy-to-follow article with truly notable records and each having standards for their inclusion. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
That's the thing. The inclusion criteria is so arbitrary that an endless number of "achievements" could be added to this page, which results in a bunch of trivial information all in one page. I think some of the categories could be made into a new page, if sufficient notability is established, but I'm against throwing together a bunch of trivial chart movements into a page and labeling it as "achievements" Corpx (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Corpx — While I would argue that most of the accomplishments are noteworthy, patrol can be used to eliminate those that don't meet notability muster. Still, if the article is kept (either through concensus or by default (due to a "no concensus" verdict), and remember, we're not at that point yet), would you be willing to assist with a general cleanup of the page and share your thoughts as to which "achievements" are notable and which aren't? (Remember also, this page is tagged for rescue.) [[Briguy52748 (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
Ha, I'd doubt he, or the nominator of this AFD, would be willing to. Nowadays, editors are more interested in deleting a page, rather than working on it — which, if you think about it, makes template signs like {{clean up}}, {{unreferenced}} or {{notability}} obsolete. Corpx suggests that such lists of chart movements are non-notable and unsuitable for an encyclopedia. But I don't understand why everyone is against music statistics, while articles/lists about sports (NFL and NBA) statistics are celebrated, even featured. I know WP:WAX may apply here, but I still have to emphasize the bias against music-related articles. Orane (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This really isn't the best attitude to be taking, Ozone; saying we're biased just because we don't agree with your point of view. While I still stand by my vote, it looks like this will end up being "no consensus" anyway. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's "Orane", not "Ozone". And I'm not saying that you guys are biased because you don't agree with me. I'm saying that people may be biased because they cite all music/chart statistics as "laundry lists" and "indiscriminate trivia", while sports stats are treasured. Orane (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOULD YOU IDIOTS LISTEN TO YOURSELVES? Think about what you are saying. First off implying that Wikipedia is anything but a guilty pleasure is stupid. This place is NOT I repeat NOT at all credible as a source for information. It is not like an actual encyclopedia in its authenticity. Second, lists and facts aren't useful at all, it's true. Sorry. But they should be kept because they are one of the biggest reasons people go on this stupid site in the first place. Oh, look, such and such a show made a reference to something but I can't quite figure out what... It used to be on this site until some self righteous jackass decided to delete it. Those factoids and interesting tidbits aren't useful but they are entertaining and do educate on a minor level. Are you going to just blindly say that knowing something about a current trend or an old movie or interesting factoid is more useless than a large page on some WWI (Look it up but that's world war one in case that page was deleted for all you kiddies) general that NOBODY remembers? In all honesty everybody who follows the trivia rule to such an extensive length needs to be forced into surgery to have a sense of humor installed (irony, see WWI directions)If visitations to Wikipedia begin to fall off it will probably be due to the widespread deletion of the interesting factoids. Like how YouTube has a lot of people leaving because of all the deletions music videos and files. If you take way what people like then ALL that you are doing is hurting the site. Stop pretending that being an edit Nazi is a good thing. It isn't. All you are is annoying and you should really consider shoving your computer out of a window and spending some time, a very long time for some of you, away from it until your douchiness is gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.77.146 (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP user 98.246.77.146 — You may want to read the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions article; while I understand you are frustrated, I seriously doubt your comments add anything constructive to this discussion. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
I disagree, while he lost me at the word Nazi, I thought everything leading up to it was one of the best synopsis of the inclusionist argument I've read, and I'm serious. IP, don't worry, this is clearly heading to a no consensus, defaulting to keep. BTdubs, WP:AADD is an essay, not a policy.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 14:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CastAStone — Remember, I voted to keep (and my opinion hasn't changed); I was just concerned about the IP contributor's tone and that his argument was more emotional based rather than a legit reason to keep, which is exactly what the essay in question is about; and yes, I understand that said essay is NOT policy. His argument about people no longer using this site because "X" article (or series of) were deleted could be better stated in an essay that is not connected to a specific afd discussion. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Strong Keep Other than noting that absolutely nothing about this article's status has changed since its nomination for deletion failed last year, I'll repeat the post I made in the previous discussion:
The long history of "chart-watching" is a central part of Billboard Magazine's purpose and appeal. This history is reflected in a succession of encyclopedic books devoted to the topic, which have been published and updated for more than three decades (see: http://www.recordresearch.com/), as well as popular countdown shows from "Your Hit Parade" to Casey Kasem. The [then-]recent news coverage of Kanye West vs. 50 Cent "showdown" over whose album would debut at #1 indicates that this general interest in "chart achievements and trivia" continues. Artists such as Mariah Carey and The Beatles have released best-selling compilation albums whose contents are entirely based on the types of statistical accomplishments archived on this page. Numerous topics such as the Academy Awards, baseball, and television ratings have separate and subsidiary "list"-style pages on Wikipedia (i.e. [[38]]; [[39]]; [[40]]). This article is well in keeping with those, and others.One Sweet Edit (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – These chart achievements are not of interest solely to Joel Whitburn. His compilations has been noted and referenced in such books as Interpreting popular music by David Brackett (p. 35), The new blue music by Richard J. Ripani (p. 14), Popular music since 1955 by Paul Taylor (p. 45), Hit records, 1950–1975 by David F. Lonergan (p. vi), The seventh stream: the emergence of rock n roll in American popular music‎ by Philip H. Ennis (p. 404), and so on... Multiple third-party sources demonstrate sufficient notability. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An acceptable compiled list and sub article of the main. Sources certainly do exist and Billboard is the industry leader of exactly this information which feeds an mmense and worldwide music industry. Inline cites would be lovely and that is considered regular editing and clean-up work. -- Banjeboi 06:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, split from the original article do to size, and has references, plus a set standard on what gets included and what doesn't. Dream Focus 08:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Have any of you ever had a top hit in the music industry? My guess is no, so in case nobody has informed you yet having a number one hit is a huge accomplishment. To keep a song as number one for a continued length of time is incredible. I happened to be googling "Who has the most number one hits of all time?" [which was a questions google recognized, obviously meaning it is commonly asked] and this is the first website it brought me too. This list gave me exactly what I was looking for and then some. True, some of the information is not cited. BUT why destroy all of the information that is correct rather than correct or delete only information that is not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.123.198 (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nja247 07:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Baldermann

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

Non-notable politician who serves as the "part time" mayor of a small city in Illinois of about 20,000. Seems to fail WP:N criteria, could possibly be merged into the cities article but even that doesn't seem all that possible. Marcusmax(speak) 02:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G11 Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National shoe day

National shoe day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, self-promoted entity violates WP:N and WP:ADVERT mhking (talk) 02:27, 30 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 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Dechaine

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

I had to gut this article as it's a BLP that was riddled with unreferenced paragraphs. See history for what was there. Article violates WP:BLP1E, and thus should be deleted. لennavecia 02:16, 30 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. I'll close this early owing to the WP:BLP concerns and per WP:SNOW. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ferguson and Erickson

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

This fails WP:BLP1E by a wide margin and also the content is so far from Wiki standards that I do not believe it can be saved in any form. MBisanz talk 02:01, 30 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 00:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Yarris

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

Poorly sourced biography that fails notability requirements per WP:BLP1E. لennavecia 01:55, 30 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 Humbug (album). \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crying Lightning

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL mhking (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. -WarthogDemon 01:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. And user:Rexplosion, if you want to nominate those 30 less notable articles, I'll probably vote delete for them too. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete it then. It'll be back Monday anyway, after it is debuted. --Rexplosion (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, Warthog, I direct you to the Star Trek argument on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This comes down to notability. And it is clearly notable. --Rexplosion (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that page has unfortunately changed too much from its original intent. The basic arguement that "Other articles exist at Wikipedia which violate the guidelines, so this one should to" is always an invalid arguement. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was never intended to be equivalent to inherent notibility; that is the concept that in very limited cases, some class of subjects are considered inclusion worthy even if references are limited. High schools, professional atheletes in major sports, Fortune 500 companies, state and national legislators, are all generally considered "inherently notable" even if some individual examples don't appear at first glance to meet the general notability criteria. However, this idea is ONLY applied in these limited cases. Individual songs on record albums are NOT among this limited set of "inherently notable" topics, however, and must abide strictly by WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Which is why the original meaning of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here; finding random other articles which have no bearing on this arguement at hand is not terribly helpful here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So you would have Season 8 of a Star Trek series up before Season 7 barely begins? -WarthogDemon 04:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it just me, or have we gone way off-topic? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Despite being confirmed by the band per Rexplosion's link to their official website. I still think it's a little too soon to make an article for this song. There's a few Google news links about the announcement of the single, but that's pretty much it. I'd wait until its radio premiere or we get a tracklisting for the single (ie the b-sides. Most Arctics singles have at least two or three) before making an arcticle. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hate to push the issue, because it's really not important given that it will have an article, either post-airplay or post-release. But it complies with WP:CRYSTAL. Anyone who knows the music scene and the Arceys' chart history will know, as the first single off a new album, it is "almost certain" to chart, probably in the top 10. They are one of the biggest bands in the UK, and this is pretty much accepted. There will be more information in the coming days and weeks about it so I think that the only reason that you could have for deleting this article would be for not enough information about it, with regards to things like music videos, tracklistings, and anecdotal evidence behind the history of the song. --Rexplosion (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep it for now as it is and then add more to the article as information becomes available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.221.196 (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW by User:RegentsPark at 18:14, 1 July 2009

Mahesh dilemma

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

Article was PRODded once as OR, and contested by an IP with no explanation. Another PROD was added later, and I was seconding the PROD when I saw the earlier one, so bringing here instead. This is at best a term paper, but is entirely original research that is lacking in context, but based on the name of the contributor, this article is about his thoughts on a choice between life and intellect! There are a couple of Ghits, but nothing relevant. Delete SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:47, 30 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 00:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fotis Kokotos

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

Article written by Mr. Kokotos himself, conflicts with notability and self-promotion guidelines. Constantine ✍ 01:40, 30 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 Sacramento Public Library. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folsom Public Library

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

3rd nom, last closed as withdrawn by nom for procedural reasons. However, consensus seemed clear-ish for a merge, which is what I'm advocating here. However don't want to implement unilaterally following 2 AfDs. I don't think there's independent notability as there's no evidence this is anything but a run-of-the-mill library, which lacks inherent notability. Thoughts? StarM 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question- If you wanted a merge, why are we here? Why not just open up a merge discussion? Umbralcorax (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer because it's been here three times and discussed by people who aren't necessarily watching the article. I think it's only fair to get general input (such as those who have !voted before) rather than the small subset of those who watch the talk or requested merges. StarM 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as usual--I think with Sacramento Public Library, with which it is affiliated. Folsom is a small city of 70,000, and public libraries in such places are usually not notable. DGG (talk) 15:06, 2 July 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 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Strider. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) MacMedtalkstalk 20:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striders

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

Wikipedia is not a fan site. mhking (talk) 01:10, 30 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. All deletes with some commments that didn't not change the consensus Nja247 07:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Gurung

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

Notability has not been asserted within the article. Associated acts are non notable itself. Apart from that, its Unreferenced and Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Hitro 17:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If no reason has been given for notability, this should go to speedy deletion. Setwisohi (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article has been hanging around for more than 6 months and been edited by 3 or 4 different editors, I opted for AfD for better conclusion. Hitro 18:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check "Ways to spot article potential'" within WP:POTENTIAL. What made you think that this article may have potential? First of all, if you are not sure of notability, then you should not tag an article with rescue tag just in the hope that some editor may find out something notable about the subject. I do not agree with you. This has been misuse of rescue tag. Hitro 09:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask you this: Have you ever bothered to perfrom a simple Google search on her ?. I did exactly that yesterday. While I was able to find some sources within the first few pages, some of them were scattered and therefore I decided to leave it there and engage the RS.These are some sources I found (though there are more)[42] [43]. You have the liberty on thinking whatever you want on my decision to "rescue" the article. --Roaring Siren (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[44] --Roaring Siren (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have had searched for the subject all over internet including Google Nepal.The references you are talking about don't make the subject notable. I hope you do not believe that anything that can be searched over Google should have a separate Wikipedia article. No matter you have thousands of Google hits, you can not be part of encyclopedia as an actor or media personality unless you satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. I have clearly mentioned in my nomination reason that the subject does not have notable associated act and fails WP:ENTERTAINER. If you go through WP:GOOGLE, it is clearly mentioned there Google (and other search systems) do not aim for a neutral point of view. Wikipedia does. So we can not just depend on an Google Hits. Notability is a major criteria. Please read WP:GOOGLE specially "What a search test can do, and what it can't" then justify your act of tagging this article with rescue tag. I still do not believe that you had any proper reason for tagging this article other than testing the tag because you haven't left any comment at edit summary or AfD page until I asked you to do so. I do find one more article, i.e. Asrar Ahmad Adraak‎, you have tagged with rescue tag without any reason. I respect your effort and view but I clearly do not agree with it as of now. Hitro 16:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Hitro 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nja247 07:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private Show (Blaque album)

Private Show (Blaque album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Since this article has no references, I Googled for some myself, and while it appears that there are a number of Ghits, the links lead to sites that either state something about the album coming out soon and nothing else, or they talk about unrelated topics called Private Show. And although various sites claim to have lyrics for the supposed songs on the album, when you click the links to each respective song, you won't find any lyrics. Basically, while there is some hope of the album coming out in the future, right now the article is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL (and possibly WP:NALBUMS). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:37, 30 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 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oakhouse Foods

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

I don't think this passes WP:N. gordonrox24 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would go for that.--gordonrox24 (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it used to be longer, but since it was cut down the only sourced part that remained was actually the criticism it seems. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I missed when I reviewed it the first time that it had more information. I have restored the deleted content since no reason was given for the removal. Upon 2nd look it does appear to be notable. 13:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMedtalkstalk 21:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:34, 30 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 00:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christie Vilsack

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

Non-notable spouse of former Iowa governor, no independent references currently used. Marcusmax(speak) 00:28, 30 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live At The Cardiff Capital Theater

Live At The Cardiff Capital Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bootleg album. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The album has been officially released this article is not about an illegal bootleg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakecrane (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 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 July 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 00:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a major-label release by a notable artist; it's not just a compilation of previously released material; there's enough information for an article. ReverendWayne (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see that the article has been moved, but that only fixed one of the two spelling mistakes in the title. I don't want to confuse things by creating a double redirect during an AfD discussion but that should be sorted out if the article is kept. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Recommend a new AfD to garner more consensus if concerned. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ID Flow, Label Flow and Lobby Track

ID Flow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Label Flow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lobby Track (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Three software products from the same company. Little evidence of notability for any of them. Sgroupace (talk) 02:18, 23 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) 00:21, 30 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)  · @279  ·  05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Piper (trader)

Matt Piper (trader) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No demonstrated notability or extensive media coverage and even still would seem to be a WP:BLP1E at best; not one other article links to this one. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:43, 23 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, 30 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 Robert Steven Rhine. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Girls and Corpses

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

Prod was removed with claim that "editor in chief is notable and this is his work" -- notability is not inherited, so that's an invalid claim (and the guy doesn't look notable either, frankly). Other than trivial mentions in some other works and award that wasn't really an award, there's nothing notable about this. DreamGuy (talk) 02:28, 23 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) 00:20, 30 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 00:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse B. Watters

Jesse B. Watters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability not established --Like I Care 23:05, 22 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) 00:19, 30 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 Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui#Primary schools. content under the re-direct for the merge to be performed. This has been open for two weeks with no one contesting a merge. The content is not being deleted and continued AfD is not required for mergers. StarM 02:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S.K.H. Tseung Kwan O Kei Tak Primary School

S.K.H. Tseung Kwan O Kei Tak Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable primary (grade) school - fails WP:N. Usual practice is to redirect to article on school district, but in this case there is no school district article to be a redirect target. ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 16 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, 22 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, 30 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 00:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Onethirtybpm

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

No indications of WP:WEB notability whatsoever. Prod nom (by two editors) was challenged by single-purpose-account creator. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:16, 30 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WestNet Wireless

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

Article went through a spate of speedy tagging and untagged upon its creation in 2007, with the creator asking for more time. The company does not seem to be notable; Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Abductive (talk) 07:44, 23 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) 00:14, 30 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) 10:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E.d.i.t

E.d.i.t (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability/product placement. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:10, 23 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) 00:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I cannot find any RSes (using this search [47]) that can establish any notability of this piece of software. Creator has not made any strides to provide any, either, which doesn't help us in establishing it. MuZemike 00:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, likely speedy delete candidate as obvious advertising: ... the CCD sensor is now able to render the full dynamic range from the image and provide optimal results with sharp details and accurate color readings. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:15, 30 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 00:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Denton S.C.

David Denton S.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about this barrister. Sure, he's headed a few legal groups but there doesn't appear to be any secondary sources on him. The article's tone is inappropriate in places and is likely written by someone with a WP:COI. MvjsTalking 09:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur that there seems very little that makes him notable, and it wants badly for secondary sources. It's clearly been created by someone close to the subject, and given the Rumpole link between the creator and the subject, I think it could well be autobiographical. Murtoa (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some of the more non-notable elements of the article and requested sources for some of the claims. Murtoa (talk) 05:13, 26 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) 00:13, 30 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) 23:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pop 100 chart achievements

AfDs for this article:
List of Pop 100 chart achievements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. With the discontinuation of the chart and only four years of "achievements", I recommend deletion of this list of trivia. There was no consensus on a previous AFD Wolfer68 (talk) 10:10, 23 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, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing but a big list of trivia. Never mind that there're other similar lists, they should be axed too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but lean toward delete — While I voted to keep similar articles on the Hot 100 and Hot Country Singles charts (because of those charts' long-term notability and availability of sources), the issue with this article is not about sources. The Pop 100 chart is relatively short-lived and has fewer notable accomplishments relating to writer, producer, etc.; compare that to the articles about the Hot 100 with 50 years and Hot Country Songs which is 65 years old; there is no similar article currently for the R&B chart, which is 67 years old and whose stats have similar verifiability through Billboard magazine and other sources (including but not limited to Joel Whitburn). I would support keeping articles about the Hot 100 and Hot Country Songs, and if they existed the Billboard 200 (albums chart) and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs charts, but not much beyond that. (BTW — any arguement from Casey Kasem, whether he said it or not, is not a valid argument). [[Briguy52748 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Delete - no real encyclopedic value - the chart only ran for about 4 years... far too brief to gather and compare statistics in the grand scheme of pop music. - eo (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDGES with Mal Fletcher

EDGES with Mal Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

written like an advertorial, there is very little real coverage of this TV show [48]. google search mainly reveals directory listings. LibStar (talk) 13:21, 23 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) 00:11, 30 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, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Leadership Consultation

Strategic Leadership Consultation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

a non notable event with no third party coverage [49] LibStar (talk) 13:38, 23 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) 00:10, 30 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, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Function Records

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

Non-notable small record label, with only 19 releases in its entire 8-year history. Not even a hint of notability, and no sources, reliable or otherwise. Calton | Talk 14:05, 23 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) 00:09, 30 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} 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formosa's law

AfDs for this article:
Formosa's law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The sole source supporting this article is a one line entry in the Jargon File ([50]). I do not think this is enough to support a verifiable encyclopaedia article that is more than a basic dictionary definition of the term. I can find little in the way of third party sourcing for further expansion of the article, only some forum and blog mentions, a couple of copies of the Wikipedia article ([51] and [52]) and a mention in a pay to publish novel ([53]). There is no evidence of the significant coverage by reliable sources required by the general notability guideline. Guest9999 (talk) 14:45, 23 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) 00:09, 30 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plw entertainment ltd

Plw entertainment ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promo article on small record label, with much name-dropping but little actual evidence of notability/real-world impact. Speedy declined due to the name-dropping. Calton | Talk 15:07, 23 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) 00:09, 30 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) 10:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Birgunj

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

A non-notable beauty pageant which took place only thrice in last 15 years. No reference at all. A minor contest which does not need a separate article. External Link, which is supposed to be official website of the contest, leads to a site which is reported attack site by AVG antivirus. Even Google Search warns for harmful nature of this site. Hitro 17:21, 23 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) 00:05, 30 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. —harej (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Pokhara

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

Non-Notable leg of the national event which does not require a separate article. Unreferenced, may be original research. External link, at the time of my editing, leads to a closed site. Hitro 17:35, 23 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, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local coverage by a local paper isn't compelling. Their job is to cover local events. Lack of notability is why nobody else covers it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real notability established and it very much looks like they're using the WP page as their group's web site Corpx (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-open The pageant is going to held again this year after a decade so I think it is relevant for the page to form back. [2] [3]Yuto1 (talk) 18:39 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Neighborhoods in Detroit. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zone 8, Detroit

Zone 8, Detroit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. The terminology "Zone 8" appears to be nearly non-existant, and I can find exactly zero references in any reliable sources. In addition, the article itself contains at least three mutually contradictory geographical descriptions of the neighborhood, leading me to believe that the term, even when it might be used, is hazily defined. Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Well, I can verify that there is an area known as "Zone 8" [54], [55], [56] [57] and that there is a gang called "Zone 8" [58], [59] although of them link the two - although it would seem logical. Also none of these sources are reliable, except perhaps the first which may or may not be. One source (I didn't save the link though) seemed to imply it was related to the 8 Mile Road that Eminem sang about. Our article on that road does mention it as a dividing line between affluent white areas and poor ghetoised black areas. All this points in the direction that there is an underlying truth to this article that might be verifiable in reliable sources (although obviously this does not apply to the contradictory statements). I've labelled all this as "comment" because I honestly can't decide which side of this fence I'm sitting on I want to get down on. If reliable sources can be found then that will probably move me to a keep. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources could be found, I would like to keep it also. I believe your first source is reliable, but it's reporting on the title of a book (which may actually refer to the gang); the others are not, IMO, reliable sources. My educated guess is that "Zone Eight" is a fairly new term used by a small number of people for a hazily-defined neighborhood. It doesn't yet seem to be in wide enough use (as evidenced by the lack of reliable sources) to be considered encyclopedic. That could change in the future, granted, but the use could also wither and die. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:35, 24 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, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note: I have left notes at Talk:Detroit [60] and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Michigan [61] requesting input to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 30 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. Uncontested deletion; this was a very brief article about a SourceForge software project that contained hardly any context to give anyone a clue what this was about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Database integration tool

Database integration tool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software product. It hasn't even been downloaded once from SF yet. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:47, 23 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, 30 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. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Paul (businessman)

Mike Paul (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

does not meet notability criteria for biographies, and article appears to be self-written, unverifiable advertisesment for Mr. Paul. No reliable sources provided to attest to notability as "reputation doctor," which appears to be self-description. Jay Tepper (talk) 18:38, 22 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 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep COI, while obviously not encouraged, is not a reason for deleting an article. Media coverage on Mr. Paul is easy to locate, so he passes WP:BIO. The article needs a good rewrite, but it does not deserve to be deleted. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Although Mike Paul appears in often in media coverage, it seems to be mostly for the purpose of subject-related PR quotation and/or opinion. Based on the article's references, Mr. Paul is not the sole subject of "significant coverage" in multiple independent sources, but rather appears alongside other individuals receiving extensive media coverage. As such, there may be some notability issues in Category:Public_relations_people. LagrangeCalvert (talk) 02:13, 30 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dellwood Country Club

Dellwood Country Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears that has been deleted four time times only to be recreated, twice as Dellwood country club. It does not appear that the creator is interested in establishing notability or referencing has attempted to establish notability or reference the article. No notability is noted other than designed by A.W. Tillinghast, and the course is already listed in the List_of_Tillinghast_courses. Part of the article could possibly be merged into Adolf Zukor, but I do not believe it is notable enough. Click23 (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I was the one who posted the information. The only reason it was edited so many times was because i'm new to posting in wikipedia. Wasn't sure what i was doing, but i think i have the hang of it now. The information that i posted is real, factual and informative. Why would you want to delete it? Isn't this what Wikipedia is for? If someone said, hey, i want to know some information about the Dellwood Country Club, why shouldn't Wikipedia have information on it? It's a club that has an interesting history and that's what i've posted. It also happens to be designed by the famous golf courses designer A.W. Tillinhast. Not exactly sure what the problem is with the post.... please explain further or please leave the post alone.
Wikipedia is not about everything and everyone having their on page. Organizations, such as Dellwood Country Club, have to follow the notability guidelines posted at WP:N and WP:Org. You must cite reliable secondary sources, as outlined here. Please do not see this as personal, as it is not. Cazort raises some pretty good reasons to keep the article below, and that is why I posted it here, so everyone could have their say. Click23 (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (changed to strong) Keep I did a quick google news search: [62] and found a long period of coverage, most of it fairly small, but continually over a period of over 50 years, and much of it in the New York Times. Most of it is about golf tournaments held there and other things related to its golf course. I'd be hesitant to just delete this article: the golf course alone seems notable, but I'd prefer having an article on the whole club if possible, rather than just the golf course. Yes, most of these sources are very old and are not freely available online--but that's not grounds to delete. I am pretty confident that, if one got ones' hands on these print sources, it would be easy to write an article here. In addition, there's also some discussion of zoning controversy involving the club. This article seems like a classic one that it would take time and probably some offline work with library/archive access to improve--but it could be improved and thus should not be deleted. Cazort (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Taking a trip into Google News shows several news stories about this golf course, proving notability. The article can easily be expanded and with proper sources could be a good article. Tavix |  Talk  22:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just being mentioned in an article doesn't make it proof of notability. What is notable about the club? Many clubs without article host tournaments. So what? And article about a tourney, saying it it being held there, isn't notable. In depth articles about the club itself would be. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to WP:ORG, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". From the several article that I looked at, from Cazorts link, they all talk about someone is a member there, someone got married there, some reception was held there, but nothing about the club itself.

PLEASE KEEP: The Dellwood Country Club has a rich and abundant history. Keep this page because it will be filled out over time with great factual information about the land, the club and the course and so many other things. Here is a link [LINK] to more information about the club. There are SO MANY sources of information. I"m just shocked why Wikipedia is so quick to delete this article. Am i missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.125.58 (talk) Signed by Rankiri (talk)

  • Any article can be nominated for deletion, but that doesn't mean it will be deleted. If you really want it kept so bad, I'd recommend getting some sources for it as that would likely sway someone leaning for deletion. Tavix |  Talk  17:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source on tillinghast.net gives significant coverage, and as a non-profit, with primarily historical purposes, that does not seem to be associated with the country club, it seems to be independent. Perhaps one could argue it is not independent as it has an interest in promoting golf courses designed by that particular person. But I think this argument would be a bit of a stretch. Surely some print sources must be available in this case? Does anyone who is more knowledgeable know of any? That would solidify the case here. But I still say keep, based on what we have found so far. Cazort (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound weird but who are you guys? I posted the original content about the Dellwood Country Club. Since then, various people have chimed in on whether it should be deleted or not. Are you administrators for Wikipedia or just Wiki Users like me? I'm so confused and curious. Ok, now that i got that out of the way, please tell me how you want me to post sources? I can post the score card and each holes par? I could put endless information, but i get the feeling that someone here doesn't want this page to exist? Who makes the final decision? Also, when you talk about Sources, are you referring to http articles? I'm sorry i'm not down with all the net lingo. I added my LINK to the reference section of the page, but you may have been talking about something else. I'm not sure.

Firstly, any Wikipedia user can comment on discussions about whether an article should be deleted, but a final decision is made by an administrator, and only when some form of consensus is achieved. Secondly, what we mean by sources is covered at WP:N and WP:RS - unless Dellwood Country Club is covered by independent reliable sources (could be websites, newspapers, books, journals, magazines, television, radio etc.), it is probably not notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. If you can post details of some sources that cover Dellwood Country Club, then that would help. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 08:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(and we don't agree, that's the fun of it!) I still think there are enough sources. Although finding more would be nice too. Because this club has been in existence for a long time, I think it's important to consider that there are likely very many print sources that are not showing up in a google search. The Tillinghast Association, that the one link is to, probably would know of sources if you don't know where to look. You might even try calling the club itself! Someone there would certainly know of print sources or books written about it. Cazort (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I contacted the Dellwood Country Club. They told me there is a lot of literature about the Club, but almost all of it isn't available online. Because of this, they were appreciative of my efforts to get the Club listed on Wikipedia, as it's a great way for people to learn about the Club's historic past. As a reference, you should see "Time Magazine, January 14, 1929 Volume XIII Number 2, page 26".

  • Delete - How could a club founded in 1948 have an article written about it in 1929? Bearian (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you had looked at the article you wouldn't be asking that question. How can you render an opinion if you haven't looked at the article? The closing administrator should ignore your !vote. Drawn Some (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read the article over, but the reference still does not make sense. The only reference has no title or author, and is not searchable online. The reference dates from 1929, so it must be about the Estate that became the Club in 1948. I do not see how that proves notability. Alexander Hamilton's father-in-law once owned the land I live on, and the future first president of Willamette University once lived in my house. That does not make my house notable. This article needs to have references added, not hand-waving. If you really want to keep it, then please be bold and then fix it. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I want to point out that you're advocating something unreasonable--saying that people should try to fix it before you'd be convinced to recommend to keep it. I, for one, don't want to put time and effort into editing an article and adding sources only to have it deleted. I have argued that sources are highly likely to exist offline, and even online there is one detailed source and many sources for small, isolated facts. I think this is enough to keep--and keep BEFORE cleaning up. Cazort (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Regarding this observation, "In addition, there's also some discussion of zoning controversy involving the club." Is there a wiki list on "reasons to watch the local government channel on cable?" Issues of local interest generally don't make notability. If there was an argument that set larger precedent that would be fine. Regarding the other comments, which I have to take as sincere, this is an encyclopedia attempting to archive human knowledge that may transcend immediate situational issues. Some publications try to describe facts starkly. Has your club ever been involved in a scandal? Have children gotten sick from your lawn chemicals and made national news? Sex and big-name celebrities? Freak accident involving a golf ball that made news? There is nothing wrong with "dead tree sources" but we need some way to check it. I've been a defender of the obscure, perhaps if you can find public domain records and put them online that would help but it isn't a primary issue. In legal terms, I think there is something about argue with particularity- you need to at least assert somethig specific enough to argue- an anon post about a vague claim from the owner about some gnostic writings doesn't give us anything to debate. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: It seems like this has been around for a while and is worth documenting. Rather than spending time organizing a campaign to delete articles, why not try to find some references to help justify keeping it? As long as the content is interesting enough that a moderate number of people might be interested in reading it and encyclopedic in content it should stay. --Rich0 (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Duplicate vote. (Rankiri (talk)): The NY Times article was just one of many. I'm contacting the club to get more information on other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.125.58 (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments and don't make multiple recommendations. Thank you. — Rankiri (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read my comments above about non-online sources. Given that the coverage goes back to the founding of the club (and before, as the discussion here has pointed out--in that the estate that became the club is well-documented), I think it is a lot safer to assume that print sources exist than to assume that they do not. And above, the anonymous user gave this source: [63] which is highly detailed and seems fairly reliable as it is by a non-profit. But the point is, with a historical topic like this, it's absurd to argue to keep or delete solely on the basis of sources that are (readily) available online. We need to look at what sources are online and make a best guess as to what is also out there offline. And personally, I think the online coverage is pretty overwhelming here to--yes it might be mostly trivial mentions, but there is such a huge volume of coverage over a long period of time that it is more than enough to piece together a relatively complete picture of the club just from that alone. Cazort (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with you completely on keeping the article based on an assumption that other sources may exist. That completely negates the point of WP:NOTABILITY if we're going to determine notability on unverifiable sources. I dont think the site you linked to qualifies as a reliable source either Corpx (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/08/realestate/if-you-re-thinking-of-living-in-new-city-open-space-30-miles-from-the-big-city.html?pagewanted=2
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/27/obituaries/bernard-g-nemeroff-lawyer-82.html — Rankiri (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the second article has trivial coverage, but the first article does contribute a small historical fact about the founding of the club, and I think that material belongs in the article. But quibbling over details like this misses the big points covered above, in support of keeping: (a) the detailed tillinghast.net source (b) the extremely high likelihood of print sources being available (c) the sustained coverage over a very long time-period, with. Any one of these points is enough for me to lean towards keeping the article, together they seal it for me. On the basis of further reflection I am changing my recommendation to a strong keep. Cazort (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dellwood Country Club has more facilities than what's listed. They e.g., they have a BBQ pit, volleyball court, kids playground, steam rooms, driving range, etc. But if this article is going to be deleted, then why bother posting. When will an official decision be made on the fate of this article? We have to accept it or delete it. It's been in limbo for weeks. My vote is still to keep it as it provides factual information on a historic club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.7.137 (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One, the BBQ pit and such are great and wonderful and all, but they don't make the country club notable. Two, if you look up, you'll see that it was relisted to get consensus. At this point, I'm in agreement - a decision should be made today. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rome Review

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

Unclear notability. No reliable sources in article and a Google search doesn't find any snigbrook (talk) 18:42, 23 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, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The author has worked hard on this, and this !vote hurts, but I feel the references are not good enough, being either blogs or not containing material about the subject. The non-notability of the editors and publisher counts against it too. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:16, 30 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. ^ http://qn5.com/artists/mr-sos/about
  2. ^ http://awaken-nepal.com/miss-pokhara-2013/
  3. ^ https://www.facebook.com/misspokhara
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_30&oldid=299578190"