Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 31

< 30 March	1 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Braess's paradox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frances McGuigan

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

No references, no real world info, not even the portrayer's name. Only thing I found is [1].I can't confirm that the plot is accurate. Magioladitis (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fair City. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Kavanagh for a similar discussion that concluded to deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 19:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. A very minor fictional character with no coverage by reliable sources. Not even included at List of Fair City characters. — Satori Son 15:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ColdHeat. Tone 15:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athalite

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

This is a non-notable material, bordering on advertising for the ColdHeat product/company. Wizard191 (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ColdHeat, the company that manufactured this (and perhaps still does). The company's press releases barely made a splash [2] a few years ago, with about four mentions in Google news. It doesn't appear that it was ever notable, and certainly not notable outside of the context of the ColdHeat company. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with up-merging this article. Wizard191 (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above, per WP:PRODUCT: "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." Here, ColdHeat isn't particularly long, so a merge makes the most sense. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Control (music company)

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

Delete as a non-notable company. The company is not listed in either Hoover's or Dun & Bradstreet. There is no coverage in secondary sources. The claimed notability is from work done by the partners at Lionsgate, and even then credit appears to be claimed for more than their work. There is no basis for notability. Bejnar (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Hallows Eve (EP)

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

Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage, demo albums are almost inherently NN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has zero notability, and the same can be said for most demo CDs. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skankin' Pickle (album)

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

Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage, demo albums are almost inherently NN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No evidence this demo tape has received "significant independent coverage in reliable sources." — Satori Son 15:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DKFXP

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

fails WP:BAND. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles."

Both Kushner and Perez are notable musicians, with Kushner being in Velvet Revolver, Wasted Youth and Dave Navarro's solo band among others, while Perez is a solo artist and currently the (live) guitarist for Scars on Broadway with members of System of a Down. The reason why DKFXP cant be found on Google Archives is because its a kind of a pseudonym given for the release of the songs. The collaberation between the 2 has been mentioned on Blabbermouth link "Dave is currently working on a new music project with singer/songwriter Franky Perez." and Classic Rock link "4. Franky has been working on tracks with Velvet Revolver guitarist Dave Kushner. 6. Frankie abbreviates his name to FXP.". HrZ (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I concur with the rule cited by HrZ above, as there are many notable people in this band. However, at this point it might be too early for an article because the band has not yet done much of note. Until that happens, and if the result of this discussion is to delete, the existence of this project can be noted in the pages for the associated bands and individuals. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well it seems to me that despite the guideline that imputes pure transferred notability, that an ensemble ought to have some claim to notability on its own. --Bejnar (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as G10 (attack page); Calling a page that doesn't so much as list a birthdate or give some indication of the subject's history a "biography" was at best a joke in poor taste; when it consists of nothing but a collection of unflattering anecdotes it's character assassination. — Coren ^(talk) 04:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inge Lynn Collins Bongo

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

Subject has requested to opt-out of the encyclopedia. I am currently neutral; that could change as I research further. NW (Talk) 00:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She appears quite notable, but the article suffers from too many primary source citations without corresponding secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the secondary coverage of Inge Bongo sparked by the 4 Feb. 2010 Senate report. Secondary coverage includes:

her appearance on the television real estate shopping program: Peta, Basildon (6 September 2009) "Chance to right things goes begging in Gabon" The Sunday Independent (South Africa) page 10; Rice, Xan (5 May 2008) "International: Gabon: Papa Bongos 40 years in power: Record-breaking rule thanks to oil cash but cronysim and corruption taint future" The Guardian page 15; and McFerson, Hazel M. (2009)"Governance and Hyper-corruption in Resource-rich African Countries" Third World Quarterly 30(8): pp.1529–1547 doi:10.1080/01436590903279257

her estrangement from Ali Ben Bongo and voodoo: Staff (30 August 2009) "'First Lady' in California Exile" The New York Post page 14

Evidence of her actual marriage to Ali Ben Bongo at a private ceremony in Spain seems to be paltry at best. --Bejnar (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning editor Ingebongo has removed most of the article, you may wish to look at the fuller older version when making your analysis. --Bejnar (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aengw has restored the original article. --Bejnar (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BLP of marginal notability (stitched together from news stories, some of them tabloid); subject expresses a clear preference for deletion. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a biography; it is a cobble-job of a bunch of unconnected events that do nothing but paint the marginally-notable subject of the article in a bad light. I have reservations about relying on the Subcommittee report as it is a primary source - there are no secondary sources cited for the money-laundering stuff. Not at all comfortable with the retention of this article. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Article has been trimmed back from the poor situation it was in but under the circumstances of semi notable, poorly cited with no coverage and request from the subject, I support deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No comprehensive sources available to write an in depth npov account of her life up to now. Hobbling together bits and pieces can not give a well balanced entry so delete. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the views of the subject, there is no indication that this article can be developed into anything more than a couple of poorly-sourced gossip items. If necessary, a proper article can be created if the subject is ever featured in a secondary source as notable. Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—subject is of marginal at best notability, the article consists of a list of peripheral negative incidents involving the subject and is not either comprehensive or netural, and the subject herself requests deletion. –Grondemar 22:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning User:JzG re-censored the article on April 4 immediately before all of the above delete votes were cast. This deletion,[3] complete with a warning against re-adding content, is based on the assertion that a majority and minority staff report from the Permanent Committee on Investigations of the United States Senate is an unreliable primary source that cannot be used in a Wikipedia biography. Please consult the older version.[4] Wnt (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roozz

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

This article is a likely subject of paid editing coming from this post on freelancer dot com (the page is nonpublic but anyone can create an account for free to view it).

The page reads "I am currently looking for an experienced wikipedia writer. This writer must have knowledge in composing page(s) to the wikipedia requirements and He or She must have a current Wiki user account. The hired Freelance person should be able to hold an account with Wiki-to make changes to his or her created Wiki document. This job is to create a Wiki page for the Roozz technology. I will provide writer/editor a draft, but the hired freelancer will be responsible for it's accuracy, acceptable upon the wikipedia's site guidelines-with a guarantee of no deletions within a reasonable (negotiable) time. Part of the job will be to create / find notable references for the article. In your bid remember references to Wiki articles you have written / edited and your wiki account name."

This page should be deleted as paid editing spam and as an abuse of a volunteer-run encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion. Them From Space 20:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only reference in the article is a press release. My own searches find press releases but no coverage in reliable sources. Press releases don't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while it currently has only 1 ref it appears others are available and it does, IMO, just pass our notability guidelines (non-BLP). I will try to work on improving it over the next few days. Delete due to freelancer issues and the speedy deletion on Feb 18 on an article whose notability was always going to be marginal. I am neutral on this one tbh. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 14:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - That one reference is a press release. Currently there is no independent coverage listed in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the freelancer comments I am removing my objection. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 15:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established by article, quick google search shows the usual free pages, weblogs, etc. no reliable sources to indicate this has any notability. the paid editing issues dont help the article in the slightest, to put it mildly.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No decent news sources in google. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Bernstein

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

Non notable market trader and self publicist. Insufficient citations in WP:RS to satisfy notability. Prod removed without explanation by IP. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep by sheer volume of publication, I guess he is a keeper.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a neighborly Response to TonyTheTiger

Whenever I guess, I often guess wrong, so I'd rather not mimic your guess he's a keeper this time.

The sheer volume of publication offers no supporting argument in favor of Wikipedia notability:

An argument popular at AfD proceedings is "She has X number of Y, which proves that she's notable" (or not).

We may establish notability not by the quantity of one's published work, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. An article on a topic is more likely to pass the notability test with a single article in Encyclopedia Britannica than with 1 million views on YouTube.

For more information, please see I Like It! : Arbitrary Quantity.

I would encourage you to reverse your recommendation — if only to a Luke-Warm Delete — unless you can accomplish what not one of the rest of us has been able to do in two years of trying in good faith:

to demonstrate Notability by revealing to all of us reliable, independent, credible, established, mainstream news sources that have produced any substantial, comprehensive coverage of this subject.

— Wordsmith (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________________________

.

Strong Keep I'm a student of Jake Bernstein, I made the original entry and have occassionally appended it. Jake's work is objective and helpful. The entry should remain, without bias, as a simple identification of a very prolific author who is also a helpful teacher. Biased content added by the misinformed who do not know Jake or his work first hand should be removed as well as references to slanderous competitors sites. The entry should remain as a simple identification and bibliography of a prolific author. --Thor1964 (T/Special:Contributions/Thor1964/User:Thor1964/WP:Santa Cruz, CA) 12:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a congenial Response to Thor1964

As I've said before, my first obligation is to presume your good faith, and I hereby renew that presumption in your favor once more.

I understand and I respect your loyalty to your subject, Thor, and I urge you to amend — and defend — your case for a Jake Bernstein article, but only if you can ingenuously establish his notability from substantial, extant, reputable, mainstream, secondary coverage of him by sources that do not "know Jake or his work first hand," in accord with the Wikipedia policy on Notability and acceptable Sources, in advance of a reincarnation of your article.

.

I myself have not, cannot, and I've failed to find even one objective person who can.

Nonetheless, I remain receptive to anyone anywhere who can do the deed honestly.

You weaken your case (when none of us should have a "case" or any agenda at all)

if you choose to neglect the only important issue here (Notability), in favor of

such expressions of a personal point of view that our guidelines for this very discussion exclude:

"I'm a student of Jake Bernstein" + Jake's "a helpful teacher" = Wikipedia: I Like Him + Wikipedia:He's Helpful

.

Please let me encourage you to cite genuine evidence of Notability if you can — or perhaps, if you find yourself agreeing that no significant, substantial, independent, secondary, reputable coverage of Jake is out there anywhere, friend, to reverse your recommendation gently to a Regretful and Reluctant Delete — since your argument here, as it stands, may carry no weight in this nomination for deletion, in view of what we find in Notability is Not a Matter of Opinion. Your statement here

is not supported by any policies, guidelines or precedents;
does not represent a neutral point of view;
and seems to suggest you've not had much luck finding any legitimate sources of independent coverage of Jake for your article, which is a clear sign that your charismatic teacher does not meet the notability criterion.
Instead of establishing notability, your arguments and your actions upon the Article as well as its Talk page serve to suggest that you may be feeling some frustration at the impossibility of resolving the troublesome issues of Jake as a suitable subject here, while you may have inadvertently been demonstrating the dearth of legitimate coverage, and his consequent inadmissibility in the face of Wikipedia's tests for notability;
Some of the properties of your statement are specifically listed as those to avoid in deletion discussions like this one, and it does more harm to your cause than any good.

None of us should feel committed to any cause, as such — don't you think? — except to the integrity of our encyclopedia.

Let me know if I can help you.

— Wordsmith (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________________________

.

I expect that it will just get deleted again-- this is the part that is always deleted by anonymous IP address editors every time it shows up in the article-- but given that the article is on the deletion discussion list, I put back into the article the material that has been repeatedly deleted, including the article in Forbes and the circuit court opinion:

William Green, "There's one born every minute," Forbes, March 9, 1999 (article at Forbes.com)
MBH Commodity Advisors, Inc. and Jacob Bernstein, Petitioners, v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Respondent. In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit - 250 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2001) Decision (decision also available from caselaw)

Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Acccording to the wikipeda history of Geoffrey.landis edits, he regularly vandalizes other peoples wikipedia entries, propogates and participates in edit warring, and has been formaly punished by wikipedia in the past by being banned from making entries for a significant time period. Geoffrey.landis has proven to be an exceptionally arrogant and highly biased individual who thinks he knows everything about every subject, and should be premanetly banned from any making wikipedia entries and/or edits due to his uncivilized anti-social behavior therein. As an example, his election for deletion of other more notable and more widely published successful authors entries in wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.153.184 (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2010

Please do not make personal attacks on other editors. Please adhere to the civility policy, assume good faith and observe wiki etiquette. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote of confidence, User: 76.200.153.184. Just as a comment, I notice that 76.200.153.184 has made no edits to any articles other than Jake Bernstein-- and my user page. I'll also note that Thor1964 has made no edits to any articles other than approximately 60 edits to Jake Bernstein. In fact there are a lot of anonymous editors who have done nothing except add promotional material to Jake Bernstein-- 76.247.107.66 and 99.163.50.178 and 76.254.84.164 for example, to pick just three of many. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2010 (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, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the first step after keeping will be for someone unconnected to rewrite the article. Absurd promotionalism is not to be balanced by one-sided reports of adverse litigation, but by a fair treatment of the person. He's notable as an author because of the multiple books by major business publishers. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a paragraph in the Criticism section that appears to be a copyright violation, see [5] for the source text. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also materials from [6]. Looks like most of this is copied from his many self promotional web sites. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Concerns have been addressed. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tinygrab

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

Contested prod. Software with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Has been edited... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abor003 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Software established notability with third party references, Macworld Magazine, CrunchBase profile, and MacHeist --Dan Leveille^TALK 01:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Parry

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

Helping out an IP that's trying to do this nomination. I have no opinion, but the's bio's notability seems ripe for discussion. brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 01:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. I have also added some links. Silver seren^C 01:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expand. I see there are quite a few google hits for his name, if the article would be expanded, there would be no grounds to for speedy deletion. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 05:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the size of an article is not grounds for speedy deletion anyways. Silver seren^C 23:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well, the books may be notable if the author isn't. --Bejnar (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep Two books published by known publisher. Culturalrevival (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded it a little, and added references (mostly by the simple expedient of converting the external links to references) and deleted the unreferenced tag. I think he probably makes it as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2010 (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, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. He is a noted author and has done other notable things. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent updates have improved this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Overdrive (band) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overdrive (band)

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

Band does not meet notability standards. No charted songs, no notable albums. References are all either from the EXIT Festival, or other sites' simple listings of EXIT Festival acts. No other independent coverage that I can find, at least not in English. Very difficult to verify anything presented. (Declined speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate to encourage research, then delete if notability can't be established in a reasonable period of time. Given that there are probably non-English sources that could establish this band's notability I am hesitant to delete it in a process that lasts only a week or maybe two and which isn't designed to rescue articles. It needs more time and attention from local or subject-matter experts. Criteria of Wikipedia:Notability_(music) that this band might meet but which aren't in or aren't clearly in the article include 1/non-trivial coverage, 4/tour, 5/major+major-indie label, 11/rotation, and possibly others. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 19:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Overdrive (band) per Davidwr. If, after a reasonable amount of time, there is no improvement to the article, then delete. Cunard (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate per above, may have potential if thrown out to where someone can dig up any possible Serbian sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barzudi

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

Claims of notability cannot be verified. No searches turn up any results for this name. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is about a local leader who played key role in reestablishment of the peace and mutual consent between opposition the government and radical movements in Tajikistan. Latin alphabet searches may miss relevant sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Searches for the most likely Cyrillic spelling come up blank: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, but I doubt that Tajik newspaper articles from the 1990s are available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 24 March 2010 (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, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:V as no sources have been identified. Tassedethe (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ged UK 07:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mats Åkerlund

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

A street busker and church composer that fails WP:MUSIC and general notability guidelines. According to his own self published biography, his highest honors are winning church composition contests, which drew no secondary source coverage that I can find.

Note: Prominent obstetrician with the same name, don't confuse them. Gigs (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even close to meeting the WP:MUSIC bar. B.Wind (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one article is not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I searched Google News archives and found this article from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarifying: Even with that additional source, I don't see this as sufficient for our notability guidelines. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect per previous consensus. I added an entry for Servicelive.com at Sears Holdings Corporation, using a more recent source. This article will then be redirected to preserve the history. If consensus emerges at Talk:Sears Holdings Corporation that this site doesn't merit inclusion, that works too - but it is operated by Sears and should still redirect there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ServiceLive

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

Tagged for merge BACK IN MARCH FREAKING 2009 and nobody could be arsed. Use it or lose it. Sources seem too thin to even warrant a merge. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete this seems to be a mildly insignificant subsidiary for an independent article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No need to discuss this any further, the old verdict of "merge" still stands. --Pgallert (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TeamBglobal

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

Article about a non-notable sponsored cycle racing team. This search yields only 10 google hits, all of them totally irrelevant for establishing notability. Fails WP:N. andy (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also failed to find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this cycling team. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable "amateur racers who want to make their mark in cycling." I can't find any significant coverage of this team. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rock'N the Rally (Live at the Sturgis)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rock'N the Rally (Live at the Sturgis)

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

WP:CRYSTAL. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The article itself says Although it was said that shooting the new Godsmack DVD at Sturgis is a perfect way to celebrate the band's 10th Anniversary, little has been heard about it since. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Koby

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

Junior associate of Derek Alfonso and The Power of Information (deleted 25 Jan). Fails WP:N. No independent WP:RS found. Vanity page. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Wrigley

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

No notability except for "as a toddler he joined Mensa". No continuing notability. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatrix Townsend & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elise Tan Roberts — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the fact that Elise Tan Roberts was actually "youngest ever" by a month or so … Happy Editing! — 71.166.147.78 (talk · contribs) _{00:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a toddler who got a little news coverage as a human-interest story. Pure WP:ONEEVENT material that might merit a mention in the article on Mensa International, but not a standalone article on the child himself. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with Glenfarclas. He's just a kid who is known only for one thing (which isn't a very encyclopedic thing to begin with), and no indication of notability in the future. American Eagle (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Control (music company)

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

Delete as a non-notable company. The company is not listed in either Hoover's or Dun & Bradstreet. There is no coverage in secondary sources. The claimed notability is from work done by the partners at Lionsgate, and even then credit appears to be claimed for more than their work. There is no basis for notability. Bejnar (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scapegoat 666

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

Demo albums are non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. Marokwitz (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2010 (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, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpenBVE Network West Midlands routes map

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

Not notable, fictional rail network and only reference is to a map on the project website. ZoeL (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case delete. I saw this one when I was doing new page patrol but I didn't look at it too closely, as most railway layout maps are legit. I mean, they are bloody difficult to do and who would waste their time making a fake one? So I thought it must be a map of some real, historical or genuinely proposed rail network that somebody had mistakenly put in the article space rather than made as a template. I assumed that some contextual information would be forthcoming. If it is just some fictional stuff then it has to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2010 (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, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated in nomination. ZoeL (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Vice

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Article started by person associated with the company. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. EuroPride (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No indication of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 14:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coma (Romanian band)

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

As far as I can tell, this is another MySpace band. Sugar Bear (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsigned band for which I can't find any coverage or other indications of encyclopedic notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non Lasciarmi Mai

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

Delete. No assertion of notability and fails WP:NSONGS Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you wanting to delete everything I am creating? This article forms part of a larger discography. I am trying to find additional info, but its not helped that most info is in Italian- a language I do not understand. However, seen as though Alexia's other physical releases are on here, so should this one. I cant help it that this was released in one territory unlike Alexia's previous releases. Aquaplex (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The article is about an album of well know singer in Italy so I think that the notability is satisfied.User:Lucifero4

This is an article about a single not an album. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Widmer

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

Autobiography of unremarkable writer. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have two books to my credit, both published by a highly regarded university press. The first details the history of what is now on of the largest vaccine producers in the world, sanofi pasteur, manufacturer of the H1N1 virus. The second tells the story of a woman who took her company from the coal fields of Pennsylvania to the NASDAQ. I've had a nationally syndicated column through a unit of DowJones. Just because I'm not top of the bestseller list doesn't mean the books aren't meaningful contributions to the literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrwidmer (talk • contribs) 17:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Spirit of Swiftwater [7], although published in 1988, is in only 14 worldcat libraries, and One in a Million: A Memoir [8], which he ghostwrote, is in only 52. ( I suggest adding the articles on the two books to the deletion nomination.) DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Like) Linus

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Best summed up by the article: "All of the other tracks are lost to obscurity." Despite plenty of sources discussing the track Like (Linus), I can find no signficant coverage in reliable independent sources for the demo. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per Gene, A google search brings up nothing but Lyrics and Youtube videos of it live no Reliable Sources and not a single.--SKATER ^Speak. 22:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aboobacker Ahmad

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

Lack of notability Supertouch (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is in fact notable as a socio-religious leader, but he is known by the name "kanthapuram". So the article be rather renamed to "Kanthapuram Aboobackar Musliyar". See http://www.kanthapuram.com/eng/details.asp?ID=profile. Note that his followers and he himself prefixes the title "Sheikh", but that is a title and be avoided. Article needs a complete cleanup as it is written in a peacocky fashion Zencv^Whisper 22:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Zencv poined out, the subject is popularly known by the name "Kanthapuram Aboobackar Musliyar" and plenty of reliable sources availabe, such as [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13]. Salih (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mister (novel)

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

Article appears to be promotional in nature, does not provide proof of notability, and has no reliable sources; all three references are to neo-Nazi websites that do not satisfy WP: RS. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable and fringe.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the novel has been repeatedly ranked alongside major works of literarure and reviewed in several languages. Needs more sources, that is all. 188.220.166.33 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While more sources have been added, none of them satisfy WP: RS, in my opinion. An audio recording of The Political Cesspool? Not a reliable source. A German fringe website called "sezession.de"? Doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Reason Radio Network also looks suspect; it appears to be dedicated wholly or partly to promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and its programming lineup includes the likes of Michael Collins Piper, Jeff Rense and Texe Marrs. The Occidental Quarterly (and Observer) aren't reliable sources either. If you want a second opinion, visit the reliable sources noticeboard. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2010 (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, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication that sources are reliable and show any degree of notability. (article of course has problems beyond notability, but thats irrelevant to discussion at hand). likely a self published or vanity press title, but regardless has not broken through anywhere into notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment The credibility of the publishing house is called to question by one of the supposed sources (Occidental Quarterly) "On a separate note—the copy of Mister I read was mysteriously plagued by small typographical errors." And when you go to Iron Sky Publishing, you find that they have a total of 3 works in their catalog. Active Banana (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The novel has been ranked alongside other novels listed in wikipedia and has been widely reviewed and is available in both the US and UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.218.172 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is very similar to the earlier comment by 188.220.166.33, and neither IP has edited any article not directly related to this novel (thus making both single purpose accounts). Could this be a case of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry or attempted vote stacking? Stonemason89 (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Whois" tracks both to ISPs in Berkshire, Great Britain. Active Banana (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only worldcat copy listed is in the British Library. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would also add that the similarity of the IP address comments suggests sockpuppetry at worst, and comments worth little weight at best. I found the comment by Active Banana regarding the article's subject particularly incriminating...and humorous. Chicken Wing (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Speedy

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

Insufficiently notable subject. City council member who does not meet the notability requirements of the WP:GNG. Also see WP:BIO#Politicians, which states, "A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."[14] This is not the case here. PROD contested, so comes here for deletion. — Satori Son 14:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. no assertion of notability, no significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2010 (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, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular ^T · C 00:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indianapolis is a large metropolitan area, so it's not inconceivable that one of its councillors might meet WP:POLITICIAN, but I'm not seeing the requisite significant press coverage here. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mr. Pine. Redirecting as a personal editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gift of Wolves

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

It doesn't seem to meet our criteria at WP:NAlbums although if Mr. Pine does, perhaps it can be merged there. We seem to have a group of related articles all featuring Matt McLennan, eg Mr Pine and Cone Five. Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2010 (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, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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