Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 3

< 2 May	4 May >

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playstation 3 Technical Issues

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

Contains no valid or cited information (and adds no value over the cited information already on the main PlayStation 3 article's Reliability section). W IKIPEE DIO 00:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sony provides *no* information, so Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs) 01:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Shadowjams (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to PlayStation_3#Reliability, as this section is properly cited and notable, but not large enough for it's own article. 124.179.205.147 (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - largely covered elsewhere; no sourced material suitable for merging. Marasmusine (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't clutter PS article with this unsourced OR, which poorly paraphrases much of what is already said there.— Hellknowz ▎talk 00:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Better stated in its parent article (and sourced there as well). Not a highly plausible search term, so no redirect vote for me. --Teancum (talk) 11:30, 7 May 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 per WP:SNOW. The event has been reported around the world. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Times Square car bomb attempt

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

Wikipedia is not a news website - WP:NOTNEWS. This event was rather unremarkable as nobody died, nobody was injured and no changes in the law, or proposals for changes in the law, have been made because of it. Yes, there's been news coverage and sources, but there are also sources for the weather and we don't have a day-to-day rundown of that. Shove some info into the main Times Square article maybe? Stuff like this happens in Iraq every day and the article fails WP:EVENT. A nice story - yes. A good wiki article - no. YOU CAN NOT GUESS THAT THE EVENT WILL HAVE A LASTING EFFECT, AS THAT FAILS WP:CRYSTAL. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This bombing attempt is not a small occurrence. There is ample evidence that the bomb could have done serious damage to the area, and this event will be in the news for possibly years to come. ~BLM (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

possibly years to come is a WP:CRYSTAL fail. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support moving this info to the Times Square article. There's already a mention of the incident there, but it's small and unsourced. A failed car bomb is certainly notable, but probably does not merit its own article at this point. As has already been pointed out, a WikiNews link takes care of a lot. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — According to Wikipedia:Notability (events) if an event has lasting effects and is widely reported it noteworthy. This event will probably have lasting effects (as there will be an investigation and a lot of commentary) and it was definitely widely reported. – Zntrip 00:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that? Another WP:CRYSTAL fail. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know it had a lot news coverage? I read the news. How do I know their will be an investigation and lots of commentary? It's going on right now. – Zntrip 00:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But do I really even have to explain my reasoning? Yes, because it was in Times Square and not in Iraq does matter to its noteworthiness. And King, you made your point and others will make theirs; you don't need to comment on every Keep. Lexicon (talk) 00:48, 3 May 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Carter IV

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

Lil Wayne is awesome but im not sure this article is totally encyclopedia like considering it wont be released till 2011. Violates some parts of WP:Crystal and WP:HAMMER. STAT- Verse 00:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —STAT- Verse 01:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Lil Wayne - WP:ALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. Everything is sourced with an outdated source and there really isn't a lot of information known. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 03:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SE KinG - it's premature. When release is imminent, or when more information is reliably sourced, an article might be appropriate. Meanwhile, redirects are cheap - so no objection to redirecting this to the artist's article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator. I considered putting this up for deletion but i was afraid all the fanboys would show up and vote to keep it, same with Detox (because it really isn't notable yet especially when he won't even release a single from it nonetheless the album itself) and, even though i contributed a hell of a lot to it a while back, the I Can't Feel My Face album is likely never going to be released so i suggest the same with those (A Redirect i mean, for the time being for those albums). Str8cash (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I Can't Feel My Face is now listed for deletion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Can't Feel My Face. STAT- Verse 03:24, 6 May 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). The reason given in the nomination does not apply (site is still active) and nobody else has argued for deletion, while some have argued to keep. It is also worth noting that even if the site were no longer active it is not clear that would be a reason for deletion: we have articles on many historical topics. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecocho

Both links at the bottom of entry are not working. The link at the bottom of the page to Ecocho.com does not return anything as the domain seems not to exist anymore. Without the website existing anymore, anyone opposes the deletion? (The article also seems to have been spammed by Forestle already). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azthral (talk • contribs) 2010/04/24 18:10:15

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the links all work for me. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:33, 2 May 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, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is an active website with significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow procedure for orphaned articles under WP:ORPHAN.T3h 1337 b0y (talk) 01:37, 3 May 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maverick Speakers Series

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

This speaker series is not notable. It is not associated with any award and only began in 2008. The page appears to have only been created as a promotion. I have recently worked on several articles related to the University of Texas at Arlington, but this is not useful in my opinion. EMBaero (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 26 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) 00:06, 3 May 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 and redirect to Ball lightning. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ball light

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

Apparent original research (see the talk page), largely self-referenced. There may be some material that could be merged with Ball lightning. Acroterion _(talk) 11:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge and delete - save anything worthwhile to ball lightning (not much) and delete the rest. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:17, 26 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) 00:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge relevant content into Ball lightning and~~ Delete per UtherSRG, also WP:SYNTH. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are the merge and delete !voters familiar with Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Any material merged will need to be so drastically rewritten to address WP:OR, WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS issues that the old article history will become irrelevant. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is really that bad (arguably so), then it should be deleted. If there is anything of use, including the compilation of the reference list, then redirecting is easier. If the redirect is really not wanted, we must at least note the authorship of Vladimir Torchigin (talk · contribs) should it get used at Ball lightning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Vladimir Torchigin (talk · contribs)'s comment on the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given those comments, I'll change my !vote to "delete." -- Radagast 3 (talk) 06:29, 5 May 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lodburaey (cyclist)

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

Non-notable cyclist. Fails the general notability guideline, and fails WP:ATH as he hasn't competed at the highest amateur level. Severo^TC 07:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep winning the Tour de Pakistan seems notable to me. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Tour of Pakistan is a very minor race and isn't organised every year so doesn't qualify as the highest amateur level of the sport. WP:ATH focusses upon the level competed at (rather than at the level success has been achieved at) and I don't see how he satisfies that? Severo^TC 16:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Tour of Pakistan is not even classified on the UCI Asia Tour, which is semi-pro. This is clearly not the fully professional level of the sport. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 28 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) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Biography of living person really needs reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:58, 10 May 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 18:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Price

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

Apparently one-time glamour model whose primary clame to fame is being the sister of Katie Price, but notability is not inherited. The only reference is to the register of births, deaths and marriages, I can't find any reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth, and the information in the article is unverified. – Toon 12:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Katie Price#Early life, where Sophie Price is already mentioned. We could add a few words to indicate that the sister is a glamour model. In this case deletion can be avoided, so per WP:BEFORE it should be -- and we certainly don't want someone searching for "Sophie Price" to find a redlink that encourages them to write an article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 26 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) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENT and the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Get this nonsense off Wikipedia. [BLP-violating comment removed.] --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:15, 7 May 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) 19:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Tschohl

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

Non-notable consultant. Refs are links to worldcat searches which are not reliable sources establishing notability in and of themselves. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be helpful if the nominator could explain how, when he was doing his pre-nomination research, he came to the conclusion that the many independent sources found by a Google Books search fail to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 21 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) 00:01, 26 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) 00:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but improve the sourcing. It is currently based entirely on primary sources, but a Google news archive search shows that enough secondary sources exist that he likely passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 7 May 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. I cannot see that evidence of the band passing the notability guidelines for articles in general or music bands in particular are met. The first keep vote acknowledges that the article fails the WP:BAND guideline, and contains research, and the claim that an article built on such a foundation can be cleaned up and improved is not substantiated. The rationale behind second keep vote is also not well substantiated has been rebutted successfully. My conclusion is therefore that the arguments heavily favor the side advocating deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armen Firman (band)

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

no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. (the Herald Sun review is on the trivial side). prod and prod2 removed saying "references support notability". i don't see which references do that. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They are listed on AMG, have released one album, and had their music released on iTunes. They do seem to fail much of the criteria of WP:BAND, and the article does appear to have a lot of original research, although I see no reason that it can't be tagged for cleanup and improved. I see no reason to delete it at this point. HarlandQPitt (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The allmusic thing is only a listing, it was an ep and that is less than the two asked for by wp:music and selling music on itunes is nothing special. I searched for sources to improve the article (and added the one trivial source I found) but didn't see enough to convince me this article was worth keeping. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivial sources do not show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 20:01, 26 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) 00:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, meets #1 and #11 of WP:BAND. -Reconsider! 02:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- no pass on #11, being played twice is not rotation. what coverage do you think meets #1? I can't see it. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm going to have to disagree with the above editor, I do not see how they meet any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. The existing sources are trivial or non-independent (so they don't meet #1), and being played a few times on Triple J and community radio isn't good enough to count as "rotation" in my opinion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 13 May 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pk cards

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

Prod was removed. Non-notable product/game: no reliable sources to establish notability. tedder (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So a well respected Magazine is not a reliable source??? The only thing I have not done is cut and paste right from these Print articles.. I would like to also note that Magic the Gathering’s Page has NO content from any source other then what is printed from their Company! The only articals on Magic's page are Review articales, no different then what I have posted here. --Shiznit1994b (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is kind of a formatting mess, so I haven't been able to evaluate it yet. Could you please tell me exactly which source you are referring to as a "well respected Magazine"? — Satori Son 18:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The artical has been edit by a friend who helped me with the format. The Scrye is the printed source I was writing about. I have also found a News story about PKXL.--Shiznit1994b (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are online links to either of those two articles available? Thanks. — Satori Son 20:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I can not find any links to the articles.. I have the printed copies(issue 128, Jan.2009) and the dvd (Oct.6th, 2008) of the interviews in my hands. From what I have found out the Scrye has stopped printing and the channel 12 only keeps the interviews up on the webpage for a short time. --Shiznit1994b (talk) 13:33, 27 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) 00:03, 3 May 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) 13:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zebra Programming Language

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

Non-notable programming language, used only on one manufacturer's line of bar-code printers. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:05, 30 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) 00:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable and isn't really a programming language, just a guide/method of customizing a printer purchased through one particular company (ZIH Corp.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by EEC 0585 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joal Beal (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zebra Technologies. If there is anything notable about this page description language, perhaps that section can be expanded. PleaseStand ^(talk) 11:21, 5 May 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. kur ykh 05:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Floyd

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

Delete What is the claim to notability here? No major awards or accolades, this guy appears to be a run of the mill journalist. Terrible sources, and little links here. Bonewah (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Floyd's writings are excellent examples of critical analysis and speaking truth to the power. I think the person who wants him deleted does not want such important critique of U.S. empire to be read.

Exactly. No major awards? Hello. Project Censored for a start. Published a book. Moscow Times tenure during cold war. This call for deletion is simply a partisan move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.137.243 (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) 00:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His story was picked as one of 25 top stories by Project Censored, that is not what I would call a 'major award'. Writing a book and working for the Moscow Times does not make him anything more than a run of the mill journalist and author, as I said. If you really want this article to stay, why dont you try improving it rather than accusing me of partisanship? Bonewah (talk) 13:44, 4 May 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, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Appears to (barely) meet WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Most of the bio is unreferenced; the only refs are his works—primary sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Pcap ping 08:44, 15 May 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) 01:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triton Productions

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

Non-notable local event-management business. Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:19, 26 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) 00:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 16:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I saw some news hits, but based on the edit history, it looks like this is an article for promo purposes. It's already been called out as an orphan as well. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:25, 11 May 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Time Communication

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

Minor manga and porn publisher Orange Mike | Talk 20:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Comment There's something funky about the link to this discussion from the article, but I can't figure out what's not working correctly. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Comment References on this article and on Comic Valkyrie indicate there is enough coverage of that magazine to make it notable. Recognizing that notability is not inherited, nonetheless when a company produces a notable product it strongly suggests that the company is notable in some way. Reserving my !vote pending checking whether any of the magazine references also discuss in some way the company as well. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the same thing about that magazine, although I know "not inherited" rule. -- deerstop. 09:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll leave it to others to go through the hits. --Gwern (contribs) 22:44 26 April 2010 (GMT)

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, 3 May 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search for the South's Funniest Accountant

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

Textbook example of spammy article about non-notable local specialty event. Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went to the press page for the event website [1] and looked at the coverage. They got about a column-inch-and-a-half from the Wall Street Journal and basically a calendar listing from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Accordingly, in the current form, I don't think there's sufficient independent coverage of the event to support an article. I agree that the article is written in a promotional tone, but that's fixable. I also agree that the sourcing problem could be fixed, and if more sources turn up (or are written) after this AfD closes, I would support the recreation of the article. (Disclaimer: I am a CPA who has practiced in metro Atlanta. I know of Accountants One, the sponsor of the event; I've met their staff at trade shows, but I've never worked for them directly or indirectly, and I have never auditioned for SftSFA. Accordingly, I conclude that I am independent of the subject.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response C.Fred, did you notice who created the article in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 22:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but I didn't consider the article so flawed in tone that it was spam. —C.Fred (talk) 23:52, 26 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) 00:02, 3 May 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 List of Honda motorcycles. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Trials Motorcycles

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

Non-notable and unedited since Sept 2009. Josh 01:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into the Honda article... I assume there's a better specific redirect, maybe Honda Motorcycles. Shadowjams (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. How does that not exist?! Of all the insane small company sub-divisions splits that we have on here, and fight bitterly over, a major automaker's huge segment doesn't have its own article?! I would have expected Honda lawnmowers to have its own article, and yet Honda Motorcycles is a redlink?! Shadowjams (talk) 07:00, 26 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) 00:01, 3 May 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. No reliable sources proving the subject's notability have been put up. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Massey

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

I can't see what she's done that is notable, and I can't find any reliable sources to add more information to this article. Basically unsourced biography since August 2009. Just working for Microsoft doesn't meet WP:GNG —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Laura is a public figure at Microsoft as a frequent co-host of a widely-listened, influential gaming podcast. White 720 (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a source that backs this statement up? We need to prove notability through reliable sources. Generally this means significant coverage in independent sources, not simply that she is popular. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 04:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Here's a list of shows in which she's participated. Here's an article that includes a mention of her in that capacity. White 720 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not saying she didn't do the show, just that she is not notable enough for a WP article. The news article is a passing mention, which does not meet the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:N. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 13:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same argument. You still have not provided reliable sources as to establish notability and warrant inclusion. Having a podcast with no secondary coverage does not establish notability.— Hellknowz ▎talk 16:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, no indication of notability. (GregJackP (talk) 14:57, 26 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) 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The search, Laura Massey+xbox gets ghits but nothing that would most likely be considered WP:RS. I have a feeling that in the gaming community, she would be fairly notable. --Morenooso (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I'm not sure I understand - no WP:RS but a !keep? What is the rationale? Thanks. GregJackP (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do believe I have the same question, given you yourself quoted ghits suitability. Perhaps the subject is notable, but there are still no sources to support this.— Hellknowz ▎talk 16:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find any sources to back up my intention to keep this. [2] seems to be the only reliable, notable source, but still does not establish the subject's notability. To above comments: Google hits aren't sources or indication of notability; podcast is primary source and not an indication of notability; being at Microsoft is not an indication of notability; being known in video game industry is not an indication of notability. </broken_record> — Hellknowz ▎talk 00:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The usage of a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. --Morenooso (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Due to a lack of consensus and an over-reliance on Google search results during this "discussion," I move to close this deletion discussion with no action taken. White 720 (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which just happens to be "Keep" by default. — Hellknowz ▎talk 16:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup. White 720 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kendal Calling

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

Advert for non-notable local music gig. Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:23, 26 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) 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like an advertisement. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not an advert and it's not about a 'local music gig'. It's an article about a fairly-major UK music festival. Plenty of Google News coverage exists. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - "fairly-major"???? According to the article, they hope to get up to 8,000 this year. That's the attendance for a weekend parish festival, not a major music event! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But it isn't a "weekend parish festival", it's a music festival that has some major artists playing every year and is very much part of the major festival circuit, big enough to be included in the NME festival guide this year. It has a similar attendance to others such as the Green Man Festival and bigger than Summer Sundae, and . If it were a "weekend parish festival" it probably wouldn't be notable, but it isn't, so your argument is specious.--Michig (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry if I've offended you, Michig; but an attendance of maybe 8k people doesn't match with the concept of "major music festival" in my mind. That's all I was saying. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not one of the very big UK festivals, but I've seen it described as 'mid-sized' - I described it as "fairly-major", not "major". There are an awful lot of music festivals these days - I think notability (and 'major'-ness) is best judged by coverage received rather than size of attendance, and those that have big acts playing are more likely to be notable than those that don't, regardless of how many people go along. The ones that get lots of TV coverage such as Glastonbury, T in the Park, Reading and Leeds, etc. are obviously notable, and I would draw the notability line some way below the likes of Kendal Calling. My local "parish festival" is probably attended by a few thousand people each year, but despite that an event with craft stalls, dog shows, and a local band playing isn't likely to be of encyclopedic interest, a good indication being only limited coverage in local publications. Music festivals such as Kendal Calling receive much wider coverage.--Michig (talk) 15:35, 4 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding the Wolves

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

WP:CRYSTAL and parts of WP:HAMMER apply. No confirmed release date or track list found in reliable sources. Band's official website only states that the album is in production. MySpace is the only source for the article's info about the potential release. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as this currently fails WP:NALBUMS. An article will be appropriate when a track list and release date are confirmed; for now, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER apply. Gongshow ^Talk 17:45, 28 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) 00:00, 3 May 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) 13:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Scott Bell

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

I can't find any biographical coverage. There's a couple credits listed out there, but absent any secondary source coverage, we can't ever have a verifiable article. Gigs (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 26 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) 00:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and a possible WP:BLP problem. I have serious doubts that a person employed at the famous J. Walter Thompson advertising firm would write a page about himself on Wikipedia, let alone an article that implies that he has been associated with only one ad campaign. If we have an article about the ad campaign for Swedish Fish, I suppose that the many JWT persons on the team can have their names mentioned. I suspect, but can't prove, that this lone contribution from User:ScottBell5050 is a case of someone finding a person with the same name. Mandsford (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of not many reliable sources (if any at all). I don't think it's that notable to have an article. --Bsadowski1 05:14, 5 May 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.