Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 22

< 21 September	23 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Even allowing for due caution, this seems to be an appropriate case for WP:SNOW. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Druid (Dungeons & Dragons)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be fake and not notable. Appears only have in world context and sources are not WP:RS compliant Testmasterflex (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Fake"? You mean, it really didn't appear in all those books mentioned in the Publication history section running back through the entire history of the game? "Not notable" is questionable as well, as there are a few independent sources cited and likely more exist. "Only in world context" - did you not notice the publication history section? It ain't perfect, but it's far from unfixable. BOZ (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not sure I follow the nominator's points, but this D&D character class is well known, appears in several editions of the game and in other works about it. Goochelaar (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Sources exist.[1][2][3][4] A nice little sourced article can be created, it will take a lexisnexis account and physically reading a bunch of 25 year old magazine to get there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A major character class in four editions of the game.SPNic (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't it cut from one edition and returned in the next? Abductive (reasoning) 21:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussions above. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable D&D character class. Simonm223 (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator should be made aware that there is a big difference between a playable character class and a run-of-the-mill monster in D&D. Abductive (reasoning) 21:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly could use some cleanup, better sourcing, etc., but this isn't like an individual D&D monster. This class has been in most (all?) editions of the game, usually in the core rulebooks, and it is an essential part of D&D's history. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure what's supposed to be "fake" about this; as an established element in the D&D game, it surely exists, and the sources document it. In a philosophical sense, game rules are in fact supremely reliable, more reliable than the best accepted findings of history or science. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rarae Avis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article from 2006 about a band that released one album in 2003, on a now-defunct independent label, and which played some local shows. They don't appear to have done anything since then. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and add Brandon Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Equazcion (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Bergen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a composer/producer who is prolific but has never achieved any major awards. Appears to fail WP:BLP, and was created and mainly edited by User:Norman517 whose edits (all except one) are about this person or their song "Only A Fool Breaks His Own Heart" leading me to believe that this is mainly autobiographical. Frmatt (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have known Mr. Bergen for years. He is an accomplished musician, musical director, composer,arranger, record producer just to name a few. Mr. Bergen has at least 3 gold albums and two platinum albums to his credits. Mr. Bergen has had great success in Europe with his music. Some of his compositions continue to be re-recorded and re-mixed in Europe and other places. Please let me know of any other changes that need to be made to this page to avoid deletion. ilonao51 (talk) 21 September 2009

Not one hundred percent sure that the user above is a sock, but have reason to believe it. Please see the report I filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Norman517. Frmatt (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can guarantee you that I am not a sock. I had to look that up was not sure what that meant. Feel free to email me any time and I will prove to you that I am not Norman517. First I am female. I am the assistant to Mr. Bergen. I took it upon myself to add all the citations that was requested for this page. I am still not done but I do have citations for almost all of the people mentioned. I tried to open the investigations link but it wouldn't open for me. Feel free to contact me at ilonao51@hotmail.com with any questions you might have. Mr. Bergen can be contacted through his website at www.normanbergen.com if you would like to ask any questions of him. I find this a little much to have to take time from my work to do all this. I do understand that there needs to be verification. I should have the verification completed within the week. ilonao51 (talk) 19:08 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment, Request to withdraw AFD - If at all possible, I would like to withdraw this AFD as I have reviewed the information that the above user has submitted and intend to work with her to resolve all COI issues, and to evaluate whether this article can meet WP standards. I would invite any interested user to join us! Frmatt (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mail truck

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Gallery of mail trucks, no sources. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Interesting to see the different types of Mail Trucks in the world. Maybe clean up the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.238.238 (talk • contribs) 2009-09-22 05:10:04
- LEGO calls it a mail van. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been tempted to say delete: in its current state the article is almost non-existent, and the gallery should definitely go to Commons. However the mail truck is by far and large a notable subject. Since AfD is not cleanup, we can move the gallery and see what can be done to have a decent article on the subject. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard has added a fair amount of referenced material. Not comprehensive by any means, but it does reinforce Cyclopia's comments and shows that there is much room for this to grow. And as an aside, its only a couple hundred characters from qualifying for WP:DYK as a 5x expansion! Arakunem^Talk 16:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Liking the sources I see. MBisanz ^talk 17:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Up until March this was a unsourced but not terrible stub.[5] Vandalism or ineptitude by an IP editor reduced it to a fragment. Sadly this wasn't reverted, but was instead very roughly built on by an editor who then added the gallery.[6] The lesson? Check the history of terrible articles, they might have once been better. Also instead of deleting this kind of article, a spell in the Wikipedia:Article Incubator could do them some good. That's not needed now as JdBP has improved it enough for it to stand alone already. Fences&Windows 18:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - improved enough to keep. DustyRain (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Predator fish

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost non-existent article. I foolishly PRODed instead of speedying and the PROD was removed without rationale or attempts to fix. "Predator fish" is not a scientific term and the group does not form an actual taxonomic unit, like "sharks" or "tuna". May qualify as neologism as well. Matt Deres (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Predator fish" isn't a neologism, it's a well-established phrase. These journalists were using it in the '50s:[7] It is scholarly as 2,670 groups of authors used it in a scholarly article:[8] A better title would be Predatory fish as that's used by 13,900 articles, but a slip of a letter in a title can be easily fixed. It's not a taxonomic grouping, but the article isn't claiming it is - it is a particular feeding behaviour. By this logic we'd delete Venomous fish and Electric fish, and we'd even delete Fish as that's not an actual taxonomic unit; fish are paraphyletic, what with the Tetrapods sitting in the middle. It's a stub, but that's no reason for deletion. Fences&Windows 21:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Title is now Predatory fish. Fences&Windows 21:58, 26 September 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, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - the article contains no useful information. Also, this is no more article-worthy than "carnivorous burrowing mammal" or "omnivorous waterfowl". We have a page for "predator" and a page for "fish" - readers can presumably put two and two together to understand what "predatory fish" might mean. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything wrong in the title - it is common to tweak it to put emphasis on a certain topic or split up a large article, but. There is nothing valuable in the body. The author could always recreate it with useful content. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. add the one ref to article on food chain, or biodiversity, or predation, or overfishing, but this is not an article. term could be mentioned as well in one of these articles, or in an article on predators.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate; that is move to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Simbo Olorunfemi with no prejudice to reversing the move at a later date should the article be sufficiently developed. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simbo Olorunfemi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

is a completely unreferenced vanity article containing wild unverified bogus claims Laestrygonian3 (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or ~~Speedy userfy~~ WP:INCUBATOR - As the article is not backed up with references to reliable sources the claimed WP:N can't be verified. WP:BURDEN is on the editors adding or restoring material and with that in mind I've challenged all claims to notability, deleted them from the mainspace article, and left a message with the editor about userfying until a version can be developed with citations. I suggested the userfy as the editor that credited this only has one edit (the one that created the article) meaning it'll likely take him or her a while to get up to speed on reliable sources, etc. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I put in some more time on this to see if I could establish notability. While I'm tempted to strike WP:INCUBATOR I'll leave it to the INCUBATOR folks to decide if they want to continue with this project. The potentially WP:AUTHOR qualifying points are:

Won the Association of Nigerian Authors (ANA) Cadbury poetry prize in 2004 and short-listed for the 1993 ANA poetry prize. I was unable to locate reliable source mention of these nor did I find evidence that they are major or notable prizes.
Rhythm of the Coins received critical acclaim worldwide. Unable to find any evidence of critical acclaim.
Per Worldcat two of his poetry collections are in several university libraries. This seems to meet WP:AUTHOR point 4 "had works in many significant libraries."

Summary - I believe if anyone interested is in continuing this project that they will need to talk with the author to dig up reliable sources. Given the level of detail included when the article was created it's likely the editor who did this is the author or someone related. Another possible way to contact him is that his e-mail address in 2007 is on the travelmole.com site (see notes above for the full URL). --Marc Kupper|talk 23:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If userfying is being considered, as was suggested above by User:Marc Kupper, I submit that it might be better to move this article to WP:INCUBATOR, a new project that is essentially the same as the userfy option, except it's in a central area, in the project namespace. The advantages of incubation over userfication are that more eyes will see the article, and that it won't sit there indefinitely out of sight if no improvement occurs.
Thanks for your consideration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INCUBATOR seems like a good place as the user that created the article seems to be gone. It looks like this one could turn into a minor constellation of articles

Association of Nigerian Authors - stub
The ANA/NDDC Drama Prize
The ANA/NDDC Prose Prize
The ANA/NDDC Poetry Prize (also called ANA/NDDC Gabriel Okara Poetry Prize)
The ANA/NDDC Flora Nwapa Prize for Women’s Writing
The ANA/Cadbury Poetry Prize
The ANA/Spectrum Prize
The ANA/Atiku Abubakar Prize for Children’s Literature
The ANA/Christopher Okigbo Prize
ANA Poetry Prize (also known as Association of Nigerian Authors Poetry Prize. This may be the same as one of the two poetry prizes above)
Nigeria Prize for Literature (this is also from the ANA)

Each needs to be researched for notability. The subject of the AFD won the Cadbury Poetry Prize for 2004.^[11] A quick scan did not fine WP:N references for the prize itself. --Marc Kupper|talk 11:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to Keep, as he appears to be notable, but this is so poorly written that it may need to go to the incubator or to the creator's user space. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radon therapy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a total mess; absolutely atrocious. This article has not been edited substantially in over a year, and is very confused about the safety/effects of radiation, claiming radon is a legitimate form of therapy, which AFAIK is simply not true. This article would need to be completely rewritten to be useful and in the mean time I think not having an article would be better than having this one. Thin boy 00 @094, i.e. 01:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbify. The topic is a valid alt-med idea (and there are RS about it), but I agree the article is a hopeless PR piece and travel brochure. This says it's a synonym for halotheraphy/speleotherapy, which are redirects to salt therapy, but it seems like radon therapy is used as a distinct meaning on our article. Needs to be rewritten from scratch in my opinion...cut it down to a stub with a cite to a lead ref or two. DMacks (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pruning it and tagging it for robust cleanup. Afd is not cleanup. I agree the article in its current state is plain terrible, but there's large room for improvement. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being messy and in need of improvement doesn't make it non-notable. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly real and important historically and to some extent today. Needs expansion, and NPOV, none of which is a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Air Hogs. Insufficient consensus to either delete outright or merge, but most agree this should not be a standalone article, and unsourced content should not be merged, as Stifle correctly notes. Redirecting is, therefore, the outcome most agreeable to this discussion. But if sources are provided, merging can also occur later from the history. Sandstein 17:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air Hogs Stormlauncher

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, this an un-notable toy. It even says in the article that it was only made in small numbers. It's unreferenced, and despite a search for some, I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. It also reads like an advert, which is usually something I'm inclined to fix through editing, but what's the point when the thing isn't notable? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge: For reasons given by nominator. There is a link to this page from the Air Hogs page, but it could just as well point to the article in the RC wikia [12] which duplicates this article.--RDBury (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Changing action) Given the additional references given below, it does seem that the product merits inclusion in WP. But, per WP:PRODUCT guidelines, it should be a section in the Air Hogs article.--RDBury (talk) 12:25, 15 September 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) 00:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Keep The story of this toy is interesting and unique enough to merit a WP article. Right now there are no reliable sources. If these could be found then keep, otherwise delete for now.Borock (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears that the correct name is "Air Hogs Storm Launcher" (note the space). There are a few GNews hits with that name: [13]. Unfortunately, most of them seem to be behind paywalls so they're hard to evaluate. Beyond the GNews hits, this review looks pretty professional, though RC Universe may or may not be a reliable source. There may very well be more sources out there, but that's what I found.--Chris Johnson (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 01:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no encyclopaedic value, unreferenced, self-promotion. New seeker (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far from notable. Possible merge if a suitable parent article can be found. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Air Hogs per B.Rossow. Cunard (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't merge because there are no sources, and all content in Wikipedia must have sources. Therefore, delete. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Alain Colas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The creator contested an IP's prod. I can't find significant coverage for this person. The subject created this article. Joe Chill (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability due to little to no coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Them From Space 03:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. So tagged. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A7, I see no assertion of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nritya Creations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't appear to be anything really notable about this dance group. There's some kind of award involved, but without referencing, I can't see that as plausible. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on gsearch there's no evidence that this group is notable. Eusebeus (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This isn't a dance group. The full name is Nritya Creations Academy of Dance. I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, per [14] - Winning first prize twice in an international competition as well as many other awards looks to me like they're notable enough for an article. -- œ ^™ 04:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 01:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep, cleanup; evidence of some notability exists. Mukadderat (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FilmFantastic Gold Coast Film Festival

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a non notable film festival. only 1 hit on gnews despite it occuring every year since 2004. [15]. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't look to be any significant coverage of this event. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With respects to the nominator, I found 27 g-news hits. No doubt we used different search parameters. I would surmise from looking at the articles in Gold Coast Bulletin, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Courier Mail, Advocate, Sydney Morning Herald , and Brisbane Times that it meets the WP:GNG for notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:20, 20 September 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) 01:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I couldn't fully evalute the sources found by MQS because many were behind paywalls but of those I could see most were just mentions in articles on other topics. Still, there is probably enough here to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 03:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Marathon at Hope College

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local fund raising event. No evidence of notability presented. (I also question the notability of some, if not all, of the other dance marathon articles.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Purely local event. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I am not a part of Hope College but I've definitely heard of their Dance Marathon. For the size of their school they raise more money per capita than many of the other Dance Marathons across the country. In fact, per capita, they are the largest in the State. Furthermore, I disagree with the second part of your comment - regarding the notability of the other Dance Marathon articles. These events literally change peoples lives by raising money for children's hospitals, and most of them make some sort of national news. Just because it isn't some awful disaster or something that you'd herd of before you joined wikipedia doesn't mean that it's not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.110.101.225 (talk • contribs)

I also disagree with this call. Even though I made the article, I am not involved with Dance Marathon on Hope's Campus - I just think it is a really awesome program and is probably the largest fundraisers for Children's Miricle Network and DeVos Children's hospital in West Michigan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.110.100.114 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good cause but fails notability. We do not put articles in Wikipedia just because we like the subject or think they are doing some good. Edison (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed good cause; however, no sources showing event covered by anyone other than the college and the organizations it contributed to. No sources from any media outlets. Can you provide an outside third party source that covered this? ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good cause, but not all good causes are notable. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable event. Giant Snowman 11:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Tension Experiment Live 2008 - Limited Edition Boxset

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No third party sources or demonstration of notability. Did this ever chart? Durova³¹⁸ 21:28, 15 September 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) 01:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to lack of reliable sources. I saw only trivial mentions on non-reliable sources.--Canniba loki 03:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 02:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 - delete per WP:N - no attempt made to establish notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two weeks to find sources showing any notability and it hasn't been done. Miami33139 (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to lack coverage to warrant an article; I cannot find any appropriate reliable sources to establish notability Chzz ► 09:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yana Lewis Dance Company

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A business of unknown/unreferenced notability - Altenmann >t 17:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back with Yana Lewis - I can't find any evidence of separate notability. Bearian (talk) 12:21, 17 September 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) 01:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bearian above. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yana Lewis is just as nonnotable, and under deletion now. - Altenmann >t 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - a business of a nonnotable dancer. Twri (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable promotional article. - DustyRain (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with Yana Lewis. GlassCobra 22:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, no attempts of rescue during this long deletion discussion. Mukadderat (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both this and Poekoelan. GlassCobra 22:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poekoelan Tjimindie Tulen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:V (no reliable third-party sources) and also appears to fail WP:MANOTE. I did a Google search and found a bunch of random webpages, but nothing that I would consider a reliable source. Google Books shows 1 passing mention in Black Belt magazine. Google News archives show 5 passing mentions but nothing in detail. Unless reliable sources focusing on this subject can be provided, the article should be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 16:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is to be deleted (and sadly, I had difficulty finding things on Google apart from one link), please also consider taking care of Poekoelan which I think is similar (or the exact same) to the above. Oh and the link I found was this: [16]. Please assess whether the ref is adequate or not. There is also a pretty lengthy blog article about it but again I don't think it would make the cut in saving this article.Calaka (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is primarily based on what I and others were taught as we studied this art. As it is a martial art, most of the information about it can not be learned on the internet but by studying the art itself (by that I mean, actually learning to fight). A great deal of the history of this art is passed orally from teacher to student. Also, by simply exploring poekoelan.com for about ten seconds you can find about 90% of the information that is contained in this article. I am in no way a skilled wikipedia user, but rather a major reader and an occasional editor, which is why this article is not very well put together. I am also somewhat shocked that the major editors of wikipedia (the people who actually know what they are doing) would rather delete an article than try and improve it by doing about ten seconds worth of research.legoman (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legoman, you stated that the "article is primarily based on what I and others were taught as we studied this art." You may not realize this, but what you have described is unverifiable original research, which is considered outside the goals of Wikipedia. If your concern is with ensuring that this information is published somewhere, you may wish to consider either your own website, or perhaps Wikibooks which has a more inclusive mission that might be appropriate for your goals. *** Crotalus *** 14:19, 28 September 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) 01:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Business Culture Index

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG, with little or no significant coverage. Ironholds (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A regular survey of any standing would surely get regular attention in the papers every year the results are release. I found one hit in GNews. Incidentally, it appears that User:Buddenr is creating pages for lots of different surveys managed by Target Group Index (two so far, the other one being Football fans index). There's no reason why these couldn't be mentioned on TGI's page (assuming TGI itself passes notability), but publicising every survey they do is a tad spammy for my liking. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:52, 15 September 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) 00:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 02:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article was originally just coatracking for Target Group Index; I've deleted the offending content, which leaves an article that does not pass WP:N, as it fails to establish the notability of the subject matter (and also contains no independent sources). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If nobody defends this stuff in the first 7 or 14 days why bother relisting it again? Miami33139 (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 09:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yana Lewis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A dancer/choreographer of unknown/unreferenced notability - Altenmann >t 17:50, 15 September 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 00:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no independent sources to verify notability of the dancer. Twri (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but merge Yana Lewis Dance Company into this bio. There is barely enough notability for one, much less two articles. There are some sources available here, there and yonder. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The dance company is just as nonnotable. The refs here there and yonder do no tell us why this dance teacher is special to be included into encyclopedia. For example, one of webpages says "playing principal roles in 'Sleeping Beauty', 'Coppelia', 'Swan Lake' and 'Peter and the Wolf", but it does not say was it in Metropolitan Opera or in George Washington High School. - Altenmann >t 14:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with Yana Lewis Dance Company. GlassCobra 22:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, no attempts of rescue during this long deletion discussion. Mukadderat (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lyudmila Sorokina

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing here proving notability. JaGa^talk 21:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no encyclopaedic value New seeker (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the article, this person was the first chief of the Museum of the Air Force of the Northern Fleet. Therefore this article adds very helpful information on this museum and the history of Russian air force and fleet. Removal of this article will result only in a gap in the knowledge base. SA ru (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SA_ru. Ferrer (talk) 19:08, 24 September 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 00:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puddle Pull

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MADEUP. Non-notable game made up by a fraternity. Contested prod. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable hazing stunt. Bearian (talk) 12:15, 17 September 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 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability outside of Miami University. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK, so it's hazing. Doesn't make it notable. It sounds like they're trying to promote the next game. I'd say {{db-spam}} on this account. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what Compfunk2 said. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments above. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Again, Puddle Pull is not hazing. It is a sporting event at Miami University that is about to have its 60th anniversary. I will agree that outside that Miami community it is probably not that notable, but having the Wikipedia article makes explaining it to other people a lot easier. remarc90 18:49, 24 September 2009 (EST) — remarc90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The subject has to have independent notability before it is added to Wikipedia. Please read WP:GNG. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shi'a Muslims

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First, articles of these kind of things shouldn't be existed, that's why the categories are there for. Secondly the person who made this article is adding football players, which if we go by this, others will make lists for footballers of each sect and religion in this word... Imagine how many useless articles will be in Wikipedia.. List of Christians footballers, list of Christian Catholic Footballers, List of Christian Orthodox footballers, list of.. Suna footballers, Ismailizim footballers, Druz footballers, Jews footballers, Buddhism footballers … etc. Again, that's why the categories are there for. Mussav (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, although if no attempt is made to source the article, then delete it. I don't know where the idea comes up that we'll have a zillion "list of _____ footballers" articles. Don't we have articles about individual Christian church denominations called List of Baptists, List of Methodists, etc., some of whom may be athletes? What's the difference? Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This kind of list would allow things like List of right handed politicians or List of baseball players with red hair or List of blond actresses. Wikipedia may not be paper, but it is still a good idea to keep Listcruft down. Googlemeister (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Googlemeister. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some folks don't like lists, but they have been allowed from the earliest days of Wikipedia, and we have lots of lists on various subjects. I may not agree with the (sometimes extreme) religious beliefs of followers of the Shi'ite sect, but a list of such persons is not ridiculous as suggested. I cannot at all see comparing a list of people who subscribe to a particular belief system to a "list of right-handed politicians" or a "list of baseball players with red hair". Mandsford (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Category already exists of such thing and more useful, Category:Shi'a Muslims. so what is the point of creating of articles? Mussav (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are seldom more useful than lists, although both categories and lists are acceptable. On a good list, one can tell at a glance what the different persons are notable for. I like a category if I have time to click on each entry one by one. If I want to know what I'm looking for, a category isn't much help at all. However, I'm glad that you've pointed out that we do have a category called "Shi'a Muslims". It indicates that Shi'a Muslim, unlike "baseball players with red hair", is considered important enough to take note of. Mandsford (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. as long as each name either links to an article which mentions that the subject is a Shi'a Muslim, or if a redlink or nonlink a reference here for notability AND religion, how is this any different than the aforementioned List of Baptists, List of Methodists? This is an easily verifiable list with definable inclusion criteria. its not "cruft", as this is a real religious denomination, and affiliation with it is eminently notable, and a major factor in the public persona for many of these people. dividing the list into subcategories could become hairsplitting, but the degree of categorization of the list is not an argument for deletion. proposing this for deletion opens up for deletion every list with definable inclusion criteria that has lots of links to existing articles. thats all of them. while i agree that there is often redundancy between lists and categories, and i do prefer category over list for things like this, if someone wants to put in the effort to create this list, and others make some effort to maintain it, i say leave it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The list of Shia Islam is actually un-sourced and disputed so this article does not match the criteria in many ways. Mussav (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than unsourced (which is the main problem that I see with this), what other criteria do you think it doesn't meet? As noted, we have a category tag added for Shi'a Muslims, and we have other lists of people of a certain religion. List of Baptists is quite well-sourced. On the other hand, List of Methodists suffers the same problem as this list. So what's the difference between List of Shi'a Muslims and List of Methodists? Easy. Nobody would dare nominate a list of Methodists. To do so would attract a swarm of !keep votes and "this can be rescued" comments from white American, Australian and British men who grew up around Christians. But a list of Shi'a Muslims? Nah. I'd say that most Wikipedians, even if they do one of those "Why some of my best friends are Muslims" lines, wouldn't know or care whether that person was Shi'a, Sunni, Wahhabi, etc. Mandsford (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I too have some concerns about whether this article may get some unfairly biased commentators. I hope and trust that WP will try to avoid that kind of behavior. this list is not the same as a list of "islamists" which is probably a much more controversial term. and to address Mussavs issues of sourcing and disputed content: the blue links dont need sources in this article, only in the article they point to. and any blue linked name where the persons religion is either not sourced or not patently obvious (say, leaders of nations with solid shi'a govts), should just be removed. they can always be added later if a source is found. I dont like saying "why not improve it by checking the linked articles?" cause it always sounds like im abrogating responsibility, but then i remember this is a voluteer effort, and im not obliged to go any further than i feel. (though i do try to not start projects and stop them midway, leaving articles half cleaned half not).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Look at this - Lists of Jews. Izzedine (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is way too broad of a topic for us to pretend to have a list that covers each of the entities with due respect. This is appropriate for a category, but as there are many different Shi'ite sects it would be inappropriate blend them together within one list article and assert that their religion is a defining characteristic which bonds them all together, which is the inherant nature of list-type articles. Instead, I would advocate lists of a smaller scope where the clumping of individuals has more encyclopedic relevance; such as a list of Imams, list of companions to Muhammad, list of theologians, etc Them From Space 04:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldnt we then have this article broken up into sections, by sect or other terms relevant to Shi'a Muslims? That would be like having a "lists of christians", with various sects, and eventually each could have a separate list as it developed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMO, These lists should be deleted and converted to categories. A list of Asian Jews and A List of African Jews? Isn't that discrimination? List of a religion separated by race... interesting. Mussav (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can we please have civility? this type of arguing is unconstructive and to most people i suspect crosses over into racism, antisemitism, or prejudice against islam. NONE of this is relevant. Shi'a Islam is a major, documented branch of Islam, and lists of people of that faith can and should be created, as long as they are verifiable and have objective inclusion criteria. the same goes for all the other lists above. I would suspect major Jewish and Moslem social scientists would agree on this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mussav has not said anything uncivil. I would add that to the extent that anyone intends to suggest that another person is a bigot, that is most definitely not civil. I'm assuming that it is not your intent to imply that anyone else in this discussion is guilty of racism, anti-Semitism (whether Judaism or Islam), etc. I'm like Mussav; I think it's kind of unusual that all of the articles listed as examples seem to have the word "Jews" in them, but that's just my observation. Mandsford (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct, no incivility has occurred. but i am very concerned that we are starting to move away from what are considered valid reasons for having lists. there is NOTHING "discriminatory" about having lists of people by nationality, ethnicity, religion. these are facts. if the lists are well sourced, have inclusion criteria that make sense, and someone, anyone, wants to create and help grow the list, then it stands. i actually am more inclined to support categories over lists, but lists are here to stay (some are poorly defined, though). some lists do provide more information than the categories, esp. when the name has birth and death years, and a few words about notability. I would support having more lists for each and every ethnic group and religion, and having names appear on multiple lists. What i would NOT support is peoples names going on lists where its not crystal clear they beling on the list, or crystal clear that that notability is somehow connected to the lists subject. i wouldnt want people who privately practice their religion listed publicly. and im sorry if i implied bad intent, i was just concerned about the way the arguments were being presented. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why all the examples I listed are about Jews is because I copied the list from the Lists of Jews page, in case my earlier comment would be ignored, to show how many lists there are for Jews alone. That I had to explain this is frustrating. Izzedine (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- i am sorry if seemed to misunderstand you, or offended you. your point, though, is well taken, though we have to be careful about invoking other articles to justify one particular one. however, i think the evidence (some of which you show here) is overwhelming that we have many list articles on nearly exactly parallel subjects, and they are not being subject to afd's.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful list per WP:LIST, yet not because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tontine (TV show)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a possible reality television show, which never came to fruition. The initial announcement and subsequent lack of filming or other information is already covered on Rob Mariano. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:52, 15 September 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) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the "Five Pillars of Wikipedia" including NPOV NO RULES AND IS AN encyclopedia! Testmasterflex (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...I think you got the pillars mixed up somehow. Anyway, delete because all the Ghits I found are from 2007. There is no recent info about the show at all, so I think it's safe to conclude that we won't be seeing it any time soon. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No resources whatsoever, nothing saying it's going to be produced. I see a bad case of crystalballery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Proposed pilot from former annoying reality show contestant that never got past the development stage. No sources, not even a pilot produced. Nate • (chatter) 08:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Can't have an entry on every failed idea anyone ever had. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bamil

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a musician that does not meet notability. Based on the username of the originator of the article, there is a conflict of interest as the name is the same as his record label. by itself, that is not a reason for deletion. However, I can find no reliable sources writing about this musician or his work. The record label itself appears to have only this musician in its roster. The charting claims in the article all relate to charts on websites and not recognized national music charts. Whpq (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or find references. Article presently contains no references, and WP:BLP requires refs for articles on living people. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:18, 16 September 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) 00:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 FourFourTwo (Australia). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four Four Two Australian Awards

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't seem to be much notability here. All the sources provided are FourFourTwo itself and there doesn't seem to be much independent notability. Perhaps some of it could be merged into the much smaller article FourFourTwo (Australia). Spiderone 12:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I think it should be "FourFourTwo" instead of "Four Four Two". Spiderone 12:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom; not enough significant third-party coverage to justify having a seperate article. Giant Snowman 12:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable magazine awards that are not highly regarded in the Football (soccer) industry. --Jimbo^[online] 13:58, 21 September 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) 00:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - may lead to a better article for both. Either that or put the relevant information in the individual player's article if it isn't there already. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (everything except the large lists) and Redirect to FourFourTwo (Australia). GlassCobra 22:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamariweb

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though a rewrite is needed. The Google hits certainly suggest that this is a significant portal in Pakistan, and sources in Urdu might tell a different story. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We may need some help from someone who can do a search in the appropriate languages. Alexa says this is the 31st largest site in Pakistan -- I'd be mighty surprised if there are no sources.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Hegarty

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only claim of notability is Hegarty being a co-founder of the Church of Satan organization. Her role is listed on the Church of Satan page and this article adds very little beyond that fact to Wikipedia (apart from being an administrator, copy editor and mother). I can see no evidence of awards or an "enduring historical record" in order to meet WP:N. The page should be deleted rather than merged as there is nothing of importance to add to the main Church of Satan article. Ash (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Church of Satan. Fails WP:BIO, needs INDEPENDENT WP:RS. Drawn Some (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources from here and here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note) The sources added do not appear to address notability as mentions of her in the press only confirm her role as already described in the nomination.—Ash (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete There are a lot of sources out there and it is possible that the totality will be enough. There is for example, this article which focuses on her divorce [17]. But right now I'm not sure if there's enough. It might make more sense to have her name redirect to a section in her former husband's article where we can use some of this sourced content rather than redirecting to the Church where information about her won't reasonably fit in. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that co-founding a worldwide religion that has tens of thousands of followers would be notable enough. I say keep it. bruce (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.166.154 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 September 2009[reply]

— 98.203.166.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bruce. There is plenty of documentation out there. She is important in her own right, not just as a bit on the Church of Satan page. She should have the name Diane LaVey restored to the entry, as this was the name was known by for decades, and that she used even before the period of the Church of Satan. She should not be only in the Church of Satan page, as the leadership of that organization after she left has been very hostile to her, and tried as much as possible to write her out of it's history. There are conflicting versions of events, which cannot be reconciled in one entry. Also her early association with Anton LaVey, the setting up of his Magic Circle gatherings, etc. were all before the Church of Satan existed. Her association and adventures with many celebrities is also outside any Church of Satan discussion.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoZ (talk • contribs)

— HugoZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For now, weak merge and redirect to Church of Satan. For now. There's some stuff out there about her, and I think if I were me I'd want to see more before I said keep. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Tribal Environmental Council

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is not clear to me that this organization meets the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator without the addition of independent sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on this page as a project for my class Cultures of Dissent: The American Indian Experience. I have been trying to find sources other than the Inter-Tribal Environmental Council's home page, but I have not found many. Sovereignty2013 (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the above comment from this AfD's talk page to here, a more visible location. JamieS93 00:16, 21 September 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) 00:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm surprised that this article was nominated for deletion. The ITEC has 41 member tribes in three states and has been an important force in environmental clean-up (air, water, old mining sites, etc.) in Indian Country in the SW. There's newspaper and some books references available as sources.-Uyvsdi (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a Tribal Environmental Professional in Minnesota, I can personally say that even here in Minnesota, we work closely with ITEC, as their expertise is accessed not only in Oklahoma, but also in Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. Together with National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC)/National Tribal Air Association (NTAA)(Albaquerque, NM), Northern Arizona Universyty (NAU)/Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP)(Flagstaff, AZ), US EPA/Tribal Air Monitoring (TAMS) Center (Las Vegas, NV), environmental programs of Inter-tribal Council of Michigan (ITCM)(Sault Ste. Marie, MI) and the Tribal Air Quality Program (TAQP) of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA)(Phoenix, AZ), ITEC provides core environmental protection support across all of Indian Country in the United States. CJLippert (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looking at the news and book mentions linked above, this topic meets the criteria for inclusion. The article itself needs to have more of these sources incorporated as footnotes, but it looks like work is being done to fix that. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motor-CAD

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly specialised software package. The author disputed a prod but has made to attempt to add evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 15 September 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 00:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 21:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bara (artist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO Not finding coverage in 3rd party sources, though the name makes searching very difficult. RadioFan (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was likewise unable to find reliable sources to establish notability. JUJUTACULAR 21:15, 15 September 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) 00:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bara is an awesome artist with lots of NPOV and notability. It also is very reliable sources. Testmasterflex (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is based on references to reliable sources not how any of us feel about the subject. There have been no POV concerns expressed so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.--RadioFan (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An NPOV article about a non-notable subject is still non-notable. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Community Theatre

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability present here. While the group obviously exists and does have a fair number of Ghits, all seem to either be trivial, self-published, or not about the theatre group itself. Almost every town has something like this, and I have a very hard time believing they're all notable on their own. Declined speedy. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, unreferenced, self-promotion New seeker (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To save you a page load, the theatre group is based in Moscow, Idaho. One might surmise that the 11K Google hits refer in good part to the more notable Moscow. Anarchangel (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:V is core policy; if the existence of a novel cannot be verified, it has no place in Wikipedia. The "keep" comments do not address this problem and are discounted in this closure. Sandstein 05:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X-COM: UFO Defense (Russian novel)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability for this Russian-only novel is quite weak. Remurmur (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 10:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is, yes. What ways have you used to check whether the article can be improved, and do any come to mind that we could still try? Have you contacted Russian-speakers on the project? --Kiz o r 22:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The fact that it is Russian is not grounds for deletion. That said, someone who can read Russian might want to check this link. I can't tell which sites are reliable. SharkD (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the fact that it's Russian that's the problem; it's that it's a novelization, which are rather non-notable by default. For consideration, note that we have no articles for the eight StarCraft novels (they were merged into StarCraft (series)).--Remurmur (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Being a novelization also does not make something non-notable "by default". Please reread WP:RS. SharkD (talk) 00:05, 25 September 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) 00:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per weak rationale. Nominator's responses have proven that no research was done on the novelization, and

WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not grounds for deletion. Vodello (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Because there's no research to do. I can't find anything that's not Wikipedia-derived from web searches and the "novel" was written by an internet-based Russian fan fiction writer. I don't even think the blasted thing was ever published.--Remurmur (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with UFO:Enemy Unknown, or with X-COM. And delete all the plot/differences from the game minutiae, it's overly detailed and non-notable. To address comments above: the notability of this novel is not established within the article, and it therefore fails WP:N - and more importantly, WP:BK, which asks for a significantly higher standard of notability. The information in the article might, however, be of interest to those researching the specific game the novel is based on or the franchise as a whole and therefore may have a place on those pre-existing pages. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find nothing resembling a reliable source for this, WP:V isn't satisfied let alone WP:N. No prejudice against reinstatement if it can be sources, but I can't support a merge as there's no sources to verify it, it's not clear if this is even an ordinary novel or a work of fan fiction, if it's the latter then there would be zero need to mention it unless it was notable. Someone another 01:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The fact that it is Russian is not grounds for deletion. Ret.Prof (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds of verifiability. ISBN? Publisher? Vladimir Vasilyev is a fan fiction writer, so was this perhaps self-published? The bulk of the article, a comparison between the story and the game, appears to be original research. Find a reliable citation, and perhaps the novel can be mentioned in the UFO: Enemy Unknown article itself. Marasmusine (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guerilla Gay Bar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N Mkdw ^talk 00:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Seems to fail WP:CORP. Also, the article is confusing in that Google hits suggest it's a bar while the article itself is written as though it's some kind of social group. It also doesn't help that most of the links are from either the official website or Facebook. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend not deleting. This is a band of loosely connected social groups, not a business and it is helpful to have an entry explaining the concept and linking to the sites of the groups. Just because some people don't understand/support the concept does not mean it should be deleted.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.68.134.132 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 September 2009

Comment - While I am sympathetic to the idea, I am not certain that the concept is notable. I've found a couple of sources, but I'd like to see a serious effort at fixing the sourcing problems. Bearian (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete i thought it was candy when i clicked it but it seems to be a bunch of jibberish and nonsense Original Research so i say Speedy Delete Big Padres Dude 00:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Although an interesting enteprise, i just don't think this particular group is notable enough. The sourcing at the moment is certainly not good enough to show notability. Weak delete, as i only did a quick source search, so a more detirmined effort to find good secondary sources that non-trivially discuss this group would change my mind. I found a couple if local news articles, but they don't add up to this being notable yet.Yob Mod 08:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may have been some original confusion from sources discussing gay guerilla organizations and some of these being gay bars. The strict term "Guerilla Gay Bar" is only referred to in circular sources (i.e. printouts of Wikipedia published by Icon Group International). All other sources included fail WP:RS in obvious ways.—Ash (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I have participated in a few of these events. I think they will be notable in the future, but they don't seem to cross the notability threshold right now. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 15:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with the exception of a couple of offline books (which appear to be sourcing minor explanatory points rather than being about the concept itself) reliable sourcing is lacking. Lots of blogs, one or two news-ish articles written by volunteers and without a clear metric of their reliability. Not enough yet for an article but warrants a mention in another article about direct action techniques in the queer community and in Gay bar. Otto4711 (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Liberal. NW (Talk) 16:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Liberals

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notability. There appears to be no independent information on this group, nor can I find any media references (even trivial ones) to them. There's simply no evidence that this group exists, and if they do, no evidence that I can see which suggests that it's anything other than a small group of like-minded friends, not as a group worthy of a Wikipedia article. See page's discussion page for full story.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpidge (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if deleted this should redirect to Liberal 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if kept, this should be renamed to The Liberals (Ireland) and the prime name should redirect to Liberal. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was privileged enough to join the LYMEC team campaigning with the Liberals in Dublin over the Lisbon treaty. They have been getting more and more attention and I'm sure you'll be seeing more of them in the future. I raise one trivial blog post mentioning them Rbrown115 (talk) 19:57, 29 September 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 00:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no mainstream media sources whatsoever. Completely non-notable and self-generated content. If they do start getting more attention, we can always re-instate the article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sole argument for keeping the page is not supported up by any evidence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frezza

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This drink does not seem to have anything notable, nor anything is claimed. I'd propose speedy delete under A7, but this is not even a company, only a particular product. Goochelaar (talk) 08:28, 15 September 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) 00:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. I couldn't really find any Ghits other than the official website. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is notable drink. --Wanhamies (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 23:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mambo Kingz

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE. Fails WP:MUSIC, these producers do not appear to be notable enough to garner significant and non-trivial coverage from multiple third party publications deemed reliable as per the reliability standards set forth in WP:RS. (1) JBsupreme (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 15 September 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) 00:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nafees Siddiqui

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have removed the speedy from this article per the discussion on the talk page:

Discussion

Is this the politician of this name? If so, notability might be established. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but the article claims this chap is a writer. Ironholds (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking around, and the politician may be a columnist, at least. In any case I'm unhappy at how many politicians from the subcontinent have pages deleted early, when their counterparts in Europe or North America certainly wouldn't. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for sources about this individual and have been unable to find any that connect the politician of the same name with the subject of this article, a writer. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are multiple spelling variations for his name - given that he's an Urdu writer, it appears that there's no consistency on the English spelling. Worldcat shows that 12 of his books listed, and the couple that I checked seem to be held in many libraries. But I'm unable to even verify the nationality of the person - is he Indian or Pakistani? But given that the article says that he's done some stuff for Doordarshan and All India Radio and the author's only other contribution is to Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, I'm guessing he's Indian. If he's the author with the worldcat listing, notability is likely to be shown, if someone can dig up vernacular resources. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person being discussed in this article is notable as a writer. He may or may not also be a politician, but there is no reason to think he is. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 18 September 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) 00:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a CV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless unambiguous sources are found before this AFD closes. As SpacemenSpiff notes, the person is potentially notable, but the name is relatively common (especially if you include spelling variations), so unless we find at least one authoritative biographical source, we risk creating a chimeric biography, which would be worse than having no article at all. Abecedare (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quod Libet

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This software does not claim to be notable. Existing references are blogs, documentation, and source code sites. Wikipedia is not a software catalog, source code navigator, or how-to site. Miami33139 (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quod Libet is a commonly used media player with quite a lot of advanced features that other media players do not have. The software doesn't need to claim to be notable to be notable. Agreed the article needs work, and the article sources aren't necessarily authoritative. The older official site is no more and the main homepage is a Google Code page, but that is still not an open wiki page as such and is the best source of general information about it. I don't believe that there is cause for deletion just because not everyone thinks it is a really notable piece of software. By having the article it enables users who are e.g. looking for an alternative media player on the Linux platform to read an (albeit short) informative description of it from a well-known and used source. Arite (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for responding Arite. Unfortunately, these are not the reasons articles are kept around on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a software directory. The sources that show notability need to be independent sites like academia, books on the subject, or large news items. You are welcome to read the Wikipedia:Notability policy to understand why mere existence is not a reason for Wikipedia to document it. Miami33139 (talk) 15:25, 23 September 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, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established within article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nativity in Black. — Jake Wartenberg 23:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullring Brummies

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A one-off supergroup that recorded one song together for the Black Sabbath tribute album Nativity in Black. They never played live together and there are no sources that even suggest further collaborations. All of the text from the article is also at the Nativity in Black page, so no need to merge. J04n(talk page) 03:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as J04n said - this info is already at the Nativity in Black page. A simple redirect to that page should be all that is needed. BeastmasterGeneral 15:41, 16 September 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, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redirection is better as this page is not informative anyway New seeker (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Plan 9 from User Space. — Jake Wartenberg 23:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V9fs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This software article does not make any claim to be notable. It has no references. The external links are documentation and download sites. Wikipedia is not a software catalog and is not a how-to guide. Miami33139 (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent software collection, Plan 9 from User Space --Cybercobra (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Cybercobra. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There have been no other votes in the full time period that this was set to close. I am treating this BLP1E as an uncontested prod. If you can bring up a valid keep rationale, I am willing to reverse my close and reopen the debate. NW (Talk) 01:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Castigador

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 03:07, 15 September 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) 00:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 23:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Holloway

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN Actor. Only claim to fame is appearing uncredited in a handful of Star Trek episodes, receiving one line. — Music Maker 5376 03:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nom says it all. Doesn't fulfill any criterion of WP:ENTERTAINER. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ENT. Shark96z (talk) 01:12, 22 September 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) 00:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very reluctantly, if only because 31 episodes is far from a handful; a "regular extra" -- is there not some union rule about this (or was that the reason for the one line in one episode?) htom (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An extra with only one line. Joe Chill (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ENT. His part in Star Trek is not substantial. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 21:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essentially an extra with no other history - non-notable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 23:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie MacDonald (entertainer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article lacks cited reliable sources, lacks notability and currently has Bio issues. Bidgee (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What the article lacks is no reason to delete it. Reliable sources are available[18]. However, apart from one follow-up article[[19]], he is only known for one event, being a Big Brother housemate. Per WP:BLP1E, he fails our criteria for an article. Fram (talk) 09:31, 9 September 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) 00:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per Fram. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 19:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oikophobia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a close call, so putting to AFD for more opinions. Extensive sourcing, but appears to be a neologism 5 years old. Possibly suitable for transwiki to Wiktionary, but basically a dictdef (if any dictionary even lists it). Durova³¹⁸ 02:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- certainly seems to be more than just a dic-def to me. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - it is certainly odd and badly formatted, but it has citations, so I'm leaning towards keeping it, with fixes. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 17 September 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, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article contains rather more than a dictionary definition and I expect will expand further over time as this concept is more widely discussed in academic circles. Ben Finn (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oik! Oik! Keep as notable enough for its own article [20] Mandsford (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BakBone Software. — Jake Wartenberg 23:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SparkEngine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This looks like an advertisement page. It's failed a PROD before, but I'm pretty sure it qualifies under G11 of the CSD. It hasn't shown much improvement since it was first written, and I don't think it's going to see any, as it doesn't seem notable. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to ColdSpark, Inc. --UltraMagnus (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: ColdSpark, Inc. is up for deletion as well. $TheWeak$ $Willed$ (T * G) 15:07, 8 September 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, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 September 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, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Relisting because the AFD on ColdSpark, Inc., the suggested merge target, has been closed as "Merge to BakBone Software". Also, the discussion wasn't sorted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to whatever the parent company's article is. I've lost track. Is it BakBone Software this week? B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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