Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 6

< 5 March	7 March >

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 merge to List of compositions by Luigi Boccherini. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of string quartets by Luigi Boccherini

This article contains nearly the same information as does the article List of compositions by Luigi Boccherini. Everything else (e.g. years) from it can be relatively quickly moved to the aforementioned article. It is not linked to by any other articles except the article about Boccherini and the list of his compositions. Tomaxer (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of compositions by Luigi Boccherini. This looks like a useful redirect--no need for an outright delete. Rklear (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per user:Rklear. -- Whpq (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. --Edcolins (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enchirito

I think they're pretty tasty, but do they really need an article? I can't find a single source pertaining to the food item proper, and I see virtually nothing worth merging to Taco Bell if we can hardly even verify what goes into it. Also, the article has been orphaned since November 06 and tagged for OR since September 07. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references appear pretty quickly. (Personally I wouldn't touch one with a bargepole - they sound revolting!) Deb (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. At best, merge to a list of former Taco Bell items. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my mind, per DHowell's notes, I'm going with a keep. Rock on, man. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the present article is unsourced, there are enough reliable sources for this to show notability and to improve the article. "Taco Bell's Enchirito really hits the spot" in The Gazette of Cedar Rapids; "Hey! Pick Up the Enchirito!; Taco Bell is ringing in the new year with something old: the enchirito" in the Los Angeles Times; and "Cerritos entrepreneur Dan Jones, creator of the enchirito, has gone from fast-food cook to franchisee" in the Long Beach Press-Telegram. Also, it is not a "former Taco Bell item", either. While it was discontinued in 1993, it was reintroduced back in 2000, and to this day is shown on their website as a menu item. DHowell (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started adding sources. I will probably add more later if this is not deleted. DHowell (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS thanks to DHowell's input. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this even gets a handful of refs it will have more refs then the majority of its counterparts. Hard to believe we can't find a good article in there. -- Banjeboi 10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N due to DHowell's input. I think the article can be rescued and it's now on it's way to recovery. Geoff ^T ^C 14:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice work Dhowell. I essentially withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Langton

Biography of a failed candidate for state office, hence does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. The remaining claim to notability rests on the assertion that the subject is "a two time Professional Bowlers Association champion". However, a Google search on PBA.com only renders trivial scores.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Therefore, also appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. Crusio (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, until enlightenment occurs After reading the Professional Bowlers Association article, I'm unclear whether this person meets WP:ATHLETE, and am hoping someone familiar with pro bowling can enlighten us. WP:ATHLETE says "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis". This shows him qualifying for an invitational PBA tournament -- does this mean he was competing at a fully professional level? I'm hoping someone familiar with professional bowling will come along and enlighten us, or references will appear for the two claimed championships.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This result list, for instance, mentions a first prize of $2500. I doubt anyone could make a living from that, so I actually have my doubts as to the "professional" in the PBA title. In any case, WP:N is a guideline, not a binding policy, and as I understand it, "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" is often taken to mean as "everybody who ever entered the field even for a split second", hence hundreds of stub articles on obscure college football players. Now that the Pokemon people have brought their house in order, perhaps the sportspeople could do something similar. Other guidelines accept notability is established if someone is clearly over the mean of his group (e.g., WP:ACADEMIC, which does not simply declare notable all "People who have worked at the fully professional level of a field of science"). Somebody not even winning regional tournaments in a sport that itself is not among the most notable ones, is not notable in my book. --Crusio (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're on the same page here. I'm not convinced what I'm seeing is "fully professional", which is why I'm not saying keep.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted above, Langton is not notable under WP:POLITICIAN since he failed to win the office for which he ran. The difficult issue is WP:ATHLETE. To qualify under that provision, I think, the article would need to show that Langton had "competed at the fully professional level". The PBA website is informative. That organization is quite different from, say, the National Football League. There are 3 membership levels: Junior, Standard, and Full. You show that you are a good bowler, and then YOU PAY THEM to get in; they don't pay you. Thus, being in the PBA is not really sufficient to provide the needed "professional level" qualification under WP:ATHLETE. If the article's author can show that Langton has earned his living as a PBA bowler I believe the article should stand. Lacking that, though, I recommend Delete. Tim Ross (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The PBA is the sanctioning body for tenpin bowling. But it is unclear what level Langton is competing at. Based on the results, he is competing in a regional tour and not a national tour. As such, it wouldn't be competing at the highest level. As for whether this is fully professional, I don;t think that matters in this case. PBA national tours would probably the highest level in the sport. Note that a Google News search turns up evidence of coverage about his bowling exploits, but looking at specifica examples indicate the coverage is not substantial. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article seems like it's some kind of attempt at self-promotion by the subject of the article. Langton is not a celebrity by any means and it is difficult to justify why he merits his own Wikipedia entry. Not to mention: what a creepy photo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.20.60 (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (with no redirect, as it seems implausible). Frank | talk 03:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular and Cellular Biology at University of Minnesota

Non-notable residence hall TM 23:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Delete -- but it is not a residence hall. it's the building where several departments are located. It is conceivable that one or more of the departments might be notable as academic departments, but that's another matter entirely The article was written back in 2005--amazing that this wasn't spotted until now. Jackson Hall, the connecting building to this one, has also been nominated below, & should be deleted also. DGG (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes amazing this has been around for so long. This seems to be the extent of information about the building on their own site. Suicidalhamster (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Minnesota College of Biological Sciences where it is already mentioned. The nomination (and the article) is in error; this is not a residential hall but a department. TerriersFan (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability (neither asserted nor that I could find). It's a building on a college campus. There are many colleges, each with many buildings containing science departments. I have a feeling there's precedent or wikiproject guidelines somewhere about this sort of thing but I don't know where. DMacks (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diddl

No reliable sources, orphaned, fails WP:NOTE. Jonobennett (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and, of course, improve). Notable comic character in Germany, especially in the 1990s. See [9]. See articles in other wikis and plenty of hits on Google news [10]. --Edcolins (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Google News search brings up a single Washington Post article (reproduced in several places) which mentions Diddl in the headline, and then in two short paras at the end, and whole bunch of stuff in other languages. There appears to be no policy in place on using foreign language sources in the English Wikipedia. If Diddl's so notable, why is this article orphaned? Jonobennett (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy in place about using non-English sources and it is that they can be used if no equally good English language sources can be found. I can't understand why so many people question this. Why on earth should we limit the subjects that we cover based on what language sources are written in? Imagine what a Manx encyclopedia would look like if it restricted itself to articles on subjects that had been covered by reliable sources in Manx. That's obviously a ridiculous proposition, and the difference between that and an English encyclopedia only covering articles with reliable sources in English is only a matter of degree. And the blindingly obvious reason why some articles are orphaned is that nobody has linked them from other articles. What has that got to do with deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed that policy -- I was looking for it under WP:RS rather than WP:V. The article being orphaned is more than just a lack of links -- Diddl is not mentioned anywhere else in WP, which if it truly was notable it surely would have been. None of the sources cited in the page talk about Diddl in any great depth -- they're all passing mentions. This is a clear case of failing WP:NOTE. Jonobennett (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case of you haven't noticed, I have added three new references, all in English. We could add plenty of sources in German and French, but that one alone must be sufficient: "It would be wrong to think that Austrians are much less family-oriented than Asians and Hispanics, hence do not buy things to please their children. In fact, there are numerous highly popular cartoon characters in the country, which appeal to customers by their cuteness. The best example is perhaps Diddl, a white cartoon mouse, together with its host of characters, that are found in almost every store, large or small." (emphasis added) [11] Still not convinced? --Edcolins (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not by that reference, no. It's a single mention on page 9 of a 10-page academic paper, published in the Atlantic Economic Journal. Hardly "significant coverage", to quote WP:NOTE. Jonobennett (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re "they're all passing mentions", have you read this one [12] and, in this source, "Diddl’s success is impressive. He’s already jumping around in 26 countries and speaks 16 different languages."? --Edcolins (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and that's from a brochure, designed to sell products associated with Diddl. Hardly independent. Notability is not about what commercial activity there has been around a fictional character, it's about how much significant coverage it has had in third-party, reliable sources. There really doesn't seem to have been any such coverage of Diddl. Jonobennett (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have two daughters. Each has about 3 Diddls, 8 Diddlinas ... None of their girlfriends has none! You can hardly find a store in Germany or Austria without a large corner of Diddles. Certainly always at least twice as large as all Disney stuff together. And that since at least 10 years. No question KEEP! --Swen 10:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swen (talk • contribs)

Keep per Edcolins, Phil Bridger. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up, per WP:HEY. For example, this edit added useful information and a cite. I can see bits of improvement in this article towards proof of notability. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think EdCollins and Phil Bridger have shown enough notability. It probably would be useful to add some of those foreign language references. Aleta ^Sing 04:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons stated above. It sounds notable to me. Dream Focus 10:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep mascot character with a Hello Kitty-esque popularity in Germany, and is internationally recognisable as well. I remember US Toys R Us having Diddl stuff a few years ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly. There are plenty of RS around. The one source on Der Spiegel from de:Diddle is a really good source to build an article from since it describes the 18 year history of the figures. --Amalthea 12:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Minnesota Students Co-op

Non-notable student residence. No outside sources are provided and notability isn't asserted. TM 23:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contrary to what the nomination states, there are assertions of notability. It claims to be one of the oldest student housing co-ops. But that is a rather nebulous claim, and there are no articles written about this. And the building is claimed to be historic being the second oldest in the neighbourhood. However, there are no reliable sources writing about this either. This building does not appear to be a registered historic place. A database search on the national register for fraternity in minneapolis minnesota turns up Phi Gamma Delta Fraternity House, located at 1129 University Ave. SE, which is not the address of this co-op. which is located at 1721 University Ave. SE. -- Whpq (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Whpq's thorough rationale. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 00:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up, reference, and Merge into University of Minnesota. Not enough for a stand-alone article.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable small student house. Merely being within a historic district is not notability: there needs to be a specific designation. DGG (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely random student house with no claim to notability in particular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Grun

Notability appears to be his involvement in a collision in an AFL match. This fact could be included in 2004 AFL season#Notable Events. Plastikspork (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is simply that he is a field umpire in the Australian Football League. Jevansen (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An umpire that has officiated at the top level of the sport satisfies me in relation to notability. Camw (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, nominator has failed to address the issues which led to the article being kept last time in his/her nomination. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
Speedy, Strong, Snow Keep - nominator has not raised any issues which are different to those that led to the article being kept last time.. The-Pope (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no problem retracting my nomination and keeping this page, but I would request that everyone who feels so strongly about the page please "watch this page" for vandalism. Check the edit history. Vandalism that had persisted for months. I find this shocking considering how many people spoke up for it the first time it was nominated, but yet no one cares enough about it to watch it for vandalism. Plastikspork (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Notability asserted at a base level - that is that he is an umpire in the AFL. — neuro^(talk) 16:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palantir (software)

This software does not appear to be notable because I can't find any coverage of it in reliable, independent sources. Reyk _YO! 22:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourceable article, WP:V WP:RS etc Lets drink Tea 23:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam with poor quality article. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Trent

Seems to be a non notable American Football player, doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE or Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability#Players. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, definitely notable, he is one of the top prospects for the 2009 NFL Draft.--Yankees10 22:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP is not the place for speculation, see WP:CRYSTAL Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per Yankees10, the draft is in a month the guy is a great football player, oh my bad I forgot the old AFD policy of "he plays in college must not be notable, let's delete", then the guy goes onto become a 10 time pro bowler and hall of famer. Keep, WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 ^T/C 22:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The guy is a great football player" - not really establishing notability there. The draft is in a month, *if* he does get picked, then what is the issue with creating the article then? The same situation occurs with music single articles, they get deleted until the single charts, regardless of if it is almost certain of charting, or only a few days before it does so. The same logic must apply here. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Chris said and there are literally hundreds of these articles all prepared for the draft and they are all great college football players who should have pages anyway.--Giants27 ^T/C 22:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he might technically not be notable enough now, but I say leave it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are there sufficient WP:Reliable sources to write a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR article? GoogleNews Google I suspect so. With such a recent creation, I recommend a keep and apply tags requesting additional sources rather than a jump to AfD. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't like when WP:ATHLETE is used as a reason for deletion. That's the "catch-all" that says if a person played in a professional game, then he/she is inherently notable. I don't believe it's purpose is to exclude people from being "notable". I do like when WP:ATHLETE is used as both a pro-keep and pro-delete argument in the same AFD. That tells me it's a poorly-written guideline. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs lots of work, but a brief look through Google News results show that there seem to be a couple of reliable independent sources ([13] [14] and lots from a source called "Wolverine Insider") that cover him in detail which would satisfy the notability criteria. Camw (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources out there to establish notability. [15] and others cited above. Apparently a top cornerback prospect. Cool3 (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the issue... "prospect". Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Why is that an issue if there are adequate sources for an article? If it's not clear that there are not enough sources, then we invoke WP:N to guide us whether there is a reasonable chance of finding sufficient sources to write an encyclopedic article but if we already know there are likely sufficient sources, we are done; keep it. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources above (and the one in the article) meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment If Trent tears his ACL before the draft and never plays in an NFL game, is he notable? I'm not sure he is. I don't think his college career is enough to warrant notability. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No he's not, and that's key. He currently does not meet notability guidelines.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no apparent awards or notability outside his own college. The recent drastic expansion of notability by the people interested in the subject needs to be discussed by the community in a more general manner. 04:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant. He meets general notability guidelines, as shown here: [16] and here: [17] Umbralcorax (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Really. Notability guidelines state "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]". Seven sources, all discussing the person, have been linked in this AFD, thus showing his notability. Whether or not he meets the guidelines set out by WP:ATHLETE is meaningless in this context. To put it in perspective- before he was drafted by Cleveland, LeBron James was notable, even though he'd only played in high school up to that point, because he'd met the general guidelines, not because he'd met WP:ATHLETE. Just because Trent isn't a household name like LeBron was at the time, doesn't mean he isn't notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask you then, if Trent is injured and never plays in an NFL game, is he notable? If we say he's notable now, he's notable forever. I think he falls into the case where he's only a starter on a Division I FBS team. There are currently thousands of those and historically tens of thousands of those. I think a person has to establish more notability than just being a "starter". From what I can tell, he's never won a conference player of the week award. Regardless, the article should be expanded upon. As it reads now, I see no notability established. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [18], [19] has a bit. Combined with a large number of school-paper articles and nfl.com, I think this meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a starter in college football should not be the threshold of notability. Some never do anything when they're in college and will just be working day jobs when they're finished.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold of notability is not in our hands. It is decided by Reliable sources. If there are significant enough notes in independent sources that we can write a V, NPOV, NOR article, then that is all that is required. We do not need to, nor should we, decide what is or isn't "important" enough for us to cover. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is very much in our hands. We can decide whether or not we want to apply the GNG even for subjects that would otherwise be totally non-notable in any rational way. We collectively make the policy here, and the guidelines, and decide on the interpretations, and when to make exceptions.The GNG is not a divine creation, but a possibly convenient tool, and we can decide when to use it. DGG (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree to some extent. For special cases, I can agree. But for something as common as this (Big 10 football starter) we should be going with a generic set of rules. We can rewrite WP:Athlete or something. But until then, I think decisions involving large numbers of articles should be addressed in guideline and policy discussions, not at the individual article level. Hobit (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 19:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleBlue, it's so good we can always count on you to blindly follow policy instead of actually thinking about things logically.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. WP:5P DoubleBlue (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some logical thought from someone else then User:Uncle G/On notability. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but having news articles written about you should not be the basis for inclusion in this encyclopdia. College football players are going to have mentions in the local papers, that's the way it is. But they still aren't "famous", or necessarily accomplished in their sport (Trent is not) and they could possibly never really become notable. Trent probably will, since he very well may be drafted and could play in the NFL. But right now, he's certainly not an accomplished enough person to be here.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the coverage is not significant enough that a V, NPOV, NOR article can be written, then I agree with you; and you may be right in this case. I did a cursory search and there appeared to be a variety of sources so that combined with the fact that one minute after creation, this article was requested to be speedy deleted and 30 minutes after that sent to AfD but never once tagged to request more sources or notability, or PRODded saying it doesn't appear to meet notability, leaves me with the suggestion that it be kept for now and tagged requesting better sourcing. But that's just my opinion. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seo Seung-Hoon

Contested WP:PROD, article about another youth footballer with no evidence of first team appearances at all, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Part of the second team as shown here - recreate when and if he makes an appearance for the first team. Camw (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Camw. THF (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Skitzo (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Mary Quigley

I don't think this qualifies for speedy. While a murder is sad, I cant find anything notable or encyclopaedic about this article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article just got started and it is not finished yet. Sure the pictures of the crime scene look trite, but we're still trying to get rights to better pictures. Why are the "Murder of Polly Klaas" and others "worthy" and this is not? This case has been ongoing for 30 years, it emphasizes DNA technology, and is currently heating up in the American Media. I see you are in the UK so why are you presuming to judge American news and modern history. This is not a physics article. It is a news and modern events article. Cloudswrest (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article is "notable" according to Wikipedia guidelines. Do a Google search on ( Mary Quigley "Santa Clara" ). The "Santa Clara" is included to weed out the chaff. There are 4000 hits, almost all relevant. Here is a link showing collective newspaper clippings http://www.flickr.com/photos/rockit442/sets/72157602692844833/ . On a related note, unless an article violates more serious guidelines, I think it's in poor taste to put a deletion banner on any article under 30 days old as it is sure to discourage contributers. Cloudswrest (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work, but many news sources and seems notable.7triton7 (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not finding sufficient sources. I don't see the "many news sources" and searching Google news turns up details on two different women by this name. Looking at this, media coverage seems mostly localized. Many instances of the same stories reprinted in different outlets. Not sure if notability is there. Will check back to see if I've missed something and may change my vote. ₳dam Zel 14:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia-English services the whole Anglophone world, not just the United States of America. Wikipedia guidelines for notability are defined and universal, therefore the presence or lack there of is recognizable regardless of geographical location of the reader. Generally, the state of development of an article within Wikipedia will not increase notability except if Wikipedia is being used as a publicity platform, which is not the mission of Wikipedia. Poettobe (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.64.100 (talk) [reply]
Comment Wikipedia has multiple routes for reviewing an article nominated for deletion. The user that nominated this article for deletion recognized this article qualified for more than speedy deletion. Poettobe (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is commemorative, not technical. Although tragic, the content indicates personal significance, not universal significance. Poettobe (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a murder case, which was covered in the regional press, like many murders are. Although it is somewhat unusual due to the 31 year gap between the murder and the conviction, I don't think it reaches the level of notability necessary for its own article. –Megaboz (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Freemasonry. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Felicitaries

Contested prod with no reason given. In the context of the article, this order lasted all of five years, and was not popular. Therefore, it does not assert its notability. MSJapan (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's enough evidence that this existed, and it has historical value. §FreeRangeFrog 05:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - To Freemasonry. There is enough evidence (in the form of a concept called Adoptive masonry) that this group existed, but per nom, I don't think there is enough material here to warrant a standalone article, unless someone else can come up with some refs. Google Books is good, but it's not perfect. §FreeRangeFrog 19:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mere existance is not enough to pass WP:ORG. FreeRangeFrog says it has historical value... perhaps he/she can explain what that historical value is? The subject seems to have been a tiny, short lived organization that had no impact on the rest of Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the subject being a perfectly well-sourced historical fact, and this being an encyclopedia, I would think that the only policies that would apply to it are WP:RS and WP:V, both of which seem to be fully satisfied. And as far as I know we're not running out of disk space. I'm curious as to which policy or guideline you're using to support your delete vote? §FreeRangeFrog 20:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are WP:NOTE in general, and WP:ORG (the notability guideline that discusses organizational groups). Both of which say that notability needs to be established through reliable third party sources. This is not the case with this article. In fact, the article contains only one reference (Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry), which does not even mention Felicitaries (much less establish why it should be considered notable). Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe a redirect and mention in the Freemasonry article? Perhaps there isn't enough material out there for a standalone article. See page 4 here. So I guess I agree on the notability issue under WP:ORG. §FreeRangeFrog 19:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main Freemasonry article is too broad sweep to mention specific groups (especially one as tiny as this). At best it would rate a passing mention Women and Freemasonry, but even there I have my doubts. See my comment below as to why this particular group is not really worth discussing. Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notably historic, in part because it was one of the "adoptive" masonic orders (permitted women). It's referenced (google books has some other refs too) and no real risk of promotional or POV issues. Shadowjams (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think accepting women is enough to establish notability. Adoptive (ie Female) Masonic orders are not that rare, especially in France (Acceptance of women was, and is, one of the differences between French Freemasonry and English Freemasonry)... the key is to examine whether Felicitaries is notable within the context of adoptive Freemasonry. Was it the first to admit women? Did it have a major influence on other, more successful adoptive bodies (such as Le Droit Humain)? If so, then I could agree that it was historically notable... but this does not seem to be the case. This is what I mean by "mere existance" not being enough. There has to be something other than existance to make it notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sverre Stub

Non-notable diplomat. No contribution to events of particular importance as required by WP:DIPLOMAT is apparent. This ... stub ... seems to be a near-direct translation of http://www.snl.no/Sverre_Stub, probably not close enough for a copyvio, but mere coverage in another online user-generated encyclopedia does not constitute notability. Sandstein 21:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Techicalities: I should note that their articles are released under a "free license", i.e. the same license as we have here. Furthermore the encyclopedia entry is not "user-generated" as Arsenikk pointed out. Punkmorten (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 42 news hits with Sesam. The SNL article is written by redaksjonen (the editors), meaning it is not user-generated material, and part of the trusted, and thus reliable, part of SNL. Since the editorial part of SNL is a general-purpose, printed encyclopædia, it would establish notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These search results appear to be mere mentions, as one would expect of an ambassador, not substantial coverage. Inclusion in one encyclopedia is not quite sufficient for notability, I think; we are not a mirror of all other encyclopedias. Sandstein 22:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do indeed, just as we should, have the principle that subjects included in national encyclopedias are notable for our purposes also . We are not a mirror, but a superset. We also have accepted all actual ambassadors from one nation to another as notable, because there is always material. He was his countries ambssador to France, which even among ambassadors, is a particularly high position in his country's diplomatic service. DGG (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me where we have decided to accept all ambassadors as notable? I would not necessarily object, being something of an inclusionist with regard to political office-holders, but that's not what WP:DIPLOMAT says. Sandstein 06:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject has an article in a paper encyclopedia, so satisfies WP:V and WP:GNG. Punkmorten (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An easy Keep - Achieving ambassadorial rank is sufficient to warrant inclusion. I've taken the liberty to modify Wikipedia:Notability (people) to reflect this. Williamborg (Bill) 19:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not going to say that all ambassadors are per se notable, but that there should be a presumption of notability. An ambassador from Norway to two other European nations ranks. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. blatant hoax Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jr. High Camp

This is not a real movie, and the entire page is made up, including the famous people listed as participants. Mtjaws (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. Google reveals nothing at all Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because this person is both not-notable and didn't win any of those awards:

Mtjaws (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 both as blatant misinformation, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dayton inventions

Listcruft. Lack of reliable sources. And even if it was renamed "List of inventions made by people who came from Dayton", this would still be listcruft. Edcolins (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Edcolins (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless someone provides more links which support the information I agree with deletion. Many of these entries seem vague and general. Stratocracy (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the one who put the original tag on the article about problems with reliable sources, I also think that this article has some major issues. I happen to think that it will be very difficult to get independent, third-party sources about each and every item on the list.Danwalk (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listcruft isn't a policy-based reason to delete, and the article has significant RSes. Seems to meet our inclusion guidelines, but in-line sourcing of each claimed invention would be good. Plenty to clean-up, nothing to delete that I see. Hobit (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find a single reliable source in the article. Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Third-party means independent from the subject. The closest to a reliable source is the University of Dayton web page to support "Dayton has more patents per capita than any other U.S. city". But this is not a third party source which would be independent from the subject, and for this statement the source is not reliable. Looking on the USPTO web site [20], you can get "Table 1. Number of UTILITY Patents Granted per 100,000 Population, by Metropolitan Area, 1998" [21] showing that Dayton had 11.5 patents per 100,000 inhabitants, way behind San Jose with 300.4 patents per 100,000 inhabitants. The other sources are self-published, and unreliable. --Edcolins (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also [22], showing relatively constant low grant numbers per capita for Dayton from 1990 to 1999. --Edcolins (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting but of doubtful reliability. Deb (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added more citations and another of which is from the National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior website that has reliable information about the per capita invention information. As that article on that website states "According to the U.S. Patent Office, Dayton had ranked fifth in the nation in terms of patents granted per capita as early as 1870. Twenty years later, it led the nation.".^[1] This is very reputable information on the subject and may provide better clarification by stating the year. As User:Hobit stated, it does meet the inclusion guidelines. There is not enough grounds for deletion, but it could use some clean up.Texas141 (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The core of the article is supposed to be the list of Dayton inventions. Reliable sources should be provided for the list itself. --Edcolins (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "National Park Service". Retrieved 2009-03-09.

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Eckardt

Non-notable consultant. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). He has not been the subject of published secondary source material. Edcolins (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Edcolins (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article and Mark Blaxill (and the now-deleted The Invisible Edge) were created by WP:SPA Kwenkbodenmiller (talk · contribs · count), apparently as a promotional campaign. TJRC (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any particular notability; reads like an advert. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Blaxill

Non-notable consultant. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). He has not been the subject of published secondary source material. Edcolins (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Edcolins (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article and Ralph Eckardt (and the now-deleted The Invisible Edge) were created by WP:SPA Kwenkbodenmiller (talk · contribs · count), apparently as a promotional campaign. TJRC (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails Notability criteria. ttonyb1 (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real evidence of any more notability than any other businessman. Reads like an advertisement, too. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bifrost (band)

There is no assertion of notability here; the band fails WP:MUSIC. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable band. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Can easily pass notability criteria for WP:BAND. This is a notable band in the history of Danish hippie rock with eight albums and at least three hit songs. I've added this reference from Politiken newspaper as well as two from Denmark's journal of music MM. (There are actually 25 articles which mention the band in the MM music journal, see [23].) There is undoubtedly more good refs in Danish books. The article in the Danish Wiki has more info and this article just needs proper development. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Now the references have been added it passes WP:MUSIC. --Triwbe (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet WP:BAND and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Unless I am misreading, at least one of the references indicates several album releases on major labels. Rlendog (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 6ps of luxury marketing

No real change from previous AFD nomination, quote: "Non-notable marketing model. Article fails to demonstrate significant, third-party coverage, and simply seems promotional of a particular brand marketer's idea". No references establish notability, provided references are either to the marketing company, or to textual details (e.g. that wealthy buyers sometimes use "fractional ownership"). Studerby (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 (blatant advertising) and salt. See first nomination. --Edcolins (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4, reproduction of previously deleted material. Rklear (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) and create-protect as extra-sodium spam. MuZemike 03:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lights In Atlantis

All of the references are broken, fails WP:NOT, non-encyclopedic Jonathan Williams (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Spectacularly. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: MySpace band. Insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleena Saeed

Probable hoax - she's 16 and has written a song for Lil Wayne? The Melodifestivalen 2007 article states that fifth place went to a song by Marie Lindberg, not one by Saeed and Chris Brown. Google search for "Aleena Saeed" is not fruitful (33 unique results). ... discospinster _talk 18:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article says that Aleena Saeed finished fifth in the first semifinal -- and the article on the semifinal results says that Andreas Lundstedt took fifth in that semifinal bracket. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it does. Thanks for noticing that. Point still stands though! ... discospinster _talk 19:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have searched about and can find no confirmation. Likely hoax, certainly not notable. Article seems somewhat out of date - it says her song "will be performed in 2008 Kids' Choice Awards", which were nearly a year ago (and the article doesn't mention her). JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - g3, blatant misinformation. Hahaha. I am from Sweden, and Melodifestivalen is our competition to select the one who goes to ESC. IF she is born 1992, she was just 15 in 2007 and not allowed to compete:) The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW, I don't see any way this article will survive AfD at this point. Severe lack of verifiability (thanks Rolling Camel!) and notability. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural History

I'm not sure that this is a notable publication, seems just to be a ~~student~~ trade magazine. The PROD was removed with very minimal explanation. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 18:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the prod as it does not seem to be a clear cut case. I cited the same reason I removed the speedy tag. At this point I am not going to vote either way, I want to see what sources the original author brings to the table. A quick googling seems a bit hit and miss here. Bear in mind this is a new article only created today. Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my essay on trade publications.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a "trade magazine"; it is a leading academic journal on the history of (mainly British) architecture. It is available on JSTOR, an important online academic resource in the UK. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge with Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain? Both articles are stubs and if expanded in the future, it can be broken out into its own article again. Proving notability is going to be bit hard at this point to justify having a separate article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep academic journal available on JSTOR. -Atmoz (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Established academic journal. No merge. Useful and important on its own (btw, listed in Wikipedia:List of missing journals/A-C). --Edcolins (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--it is an established academic journal, accessible under JSTOR, in the business a long time, etc. I don't see any reason why this should be deleted, or even merged. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I now feel keep is applicable, possibly this should be closed early as speedy keep, or by applying WP:SNOW? Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as major peer-reviewed journal in major libraries, published by major association, covered in the indexes for the field.DGG (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per excellent points raised above. -- Banjeboi 18:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to their website The Society's principal publication is Architectural History. Published each autumn, this is one of the world's leading periodicals in the field. Its been around awhile, and seems quite notable to the architectural studies. Dream Focus 10:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Duck and Cover (film). Stock close #7: AfD is not the place for discussing merges. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duck and Cover in popular culture

Per the PROD tag which was removed without explanation ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 18:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concern stated in the prod, that the topic should be covered in the parent article (presumably Duck and Cover), is not grounds for deletion. If you feel it should be covered there, merge the content to that page and turn this one into a redirect. JulesH (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging is not an issue for AfD. -Atmoz (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Parent - This info doesn't need to be its own page. Dachande (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - as above. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose merging; none of this content belongs at the other article. The subjects are wildly different. While the Duck and Cover (film) article discusses history, production, and important cultural connections, this is merely a haphazard list of largely unimportant references, that add nothing to an overall understanding of the film. It should not be merged. Mintrick (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge (trimmed) If this is merged, I would suggest trimming it down rather than listing every known reference or parody. Hellbus (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Duck and cover and Duck and Cover (film) as appropriate (some may reference the film, some may reference the practice/slogan). I don't know the current state intimately, but at various times, the article has had numerous one-off throw-away references. The important thing is that it is a tightly related topic, and none of the three articles, when well-maintained are remotely large enough to require WP:SPINOUT. -Verdatum (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with a trim) As Mintrick said, largely unimportant, therefore does not merit its own article, if references are unrelated then remove them.Beligaronia (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Duck and Cover (film); the material does not justify a standalone article. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not really clear what is the parent article, so the best thing to do is to keep this separate. The way isee it, almost always the references here are to the concept, as embodied in the film. DGG (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of the information here is cited to reliable sources about the subject of the article, and it therefore constitutes original synthesis. The proper place to cover this, to the extent that it has been written about, is in either of the main articles, and in prose form. WillOakland (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Article meets GNG as demonstrated. No assertions of what elements of NOT this fails have not been discussed. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Cussing Club

Although the article has a presumed notability because of its coverage in WP:RS, I contend that it is not actually notable because, per WP:N, "substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not." The article also needs to demonstrate Historical Notability, which this one does not. This was something that was MADEUP in school one day, that happened to get coverage on slow news days. Firestorm ^Talk 17:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with everything said in the nom. Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yes there is coverage, but it's all trivial "news of the weird" type coverage. tedder (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be notable, and is not promotional. I do not see how the article could violate WP:NOT or any other reason to delete this article per the quoted section of WP:N. As the quoted section says, coverage provides a presumption of notability, so there needs to be some compelling argument as to why this is not worthy of an article. While this may be something that was made up in school one day, it became notable after that, as demonstrated by the LA Times and the NPR references. In addition, this from today serves to further establish notability of this group. When notability is established by multiple independent reliable sources, the three I mentioned being major, not minor and local news venues, some other compelling reason needs to be provided for me to support deletion of this article. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and tedder. Doesn't pass WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- For something "made up in school one day", its certainly attracted a pretty good amount of attention from the media. Getting covered by NPR isn't exactly small potatoes, after all. I think with the sources it has in place, it more than meets notability requirements. Also, the original AFD closed 4 days ago as no-consensus (goshdarnit), perhaps a little more time to be worked on before trying to re-open the discussion would be a good thing. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, if you take a look at the previous AFD, it closed 1 year and 4 days ago. That's plenty of tme for concerns to be addressed and a new consensus to be formed. Firestorm ^Talk 19:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, you're right about that part. Still, I stand by other point, that notability is established. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many verifiable sources. Satisfies WP:V. WP:MADEUP does not apply since it has been covered in reliable sources. -Atmoz (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is current events. Historically speaking it is a blip on the radar. Shii (tock) 23:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By the lead section this seems perfectly notable. 30k member organization that resulted in a government proclamation. Just because a kid made it up initially doesn't mean it cannot evolve into something more notable. I consider the government action a much stronger evidence of notability than the media coverage itself. Even if coverage did merely occur as a result of a 'slow news day', it more importantly allows the act to be verified through an independent and reliable source. -Verdatum (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N, and no one is really arguing otherwise. Somethings that do meet WP:N don't need or shouldn't have an article. But I'd want pretty strong consensus on that...Hobit (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many things that meet the artificial guideline--not standard -- in WP N shouldn't have articles, and for three types of reasons; first because they may be better covered in other articles, second, ecause they are ruled out by the various provisions of NOT, and third, because they just plain are not notable by any common sense standard. notability is used here in a meaningless way, and i think it's time to start insisting that it means significance or importance, and this is neither. . If we need a specific provision for this, it's NOT TABLOID, by which among other things I mean NOT CUTE. Encyclopedias and newspapers have different standards of what's worth including. Another example to show why the best thing to do with the current contents of WP:N is delete and start over based on some actual principles. DGG (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are many reliable sources including national media outlets which cover this club. Its creator has written a book based on his work in the club, and has given inspirational talks at other schools. A city council issued a proclamation supporting the club's goal. All of these indicate that the club is important enough to be included, and that it meets all of the relevant guidelines for inclusion. --Megaboz (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [{User:Hobit|Hobit]] has it right. Sometimes things that start out in schools beome notable. This looks like one of them. When it gets to the point that David Letterman makes jokes about the subject (as he did this week), without any complicated setup, and the audience responds, than it's fair to say that the subject is well-enough recognized due to news coverage to meet the notability requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It wasn't Wikipedia where I first heard about this; people in the real world are starting to talk about it. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Starblind, Tedder and DGG. Also concur with DGG's assessment that this is an example of WP:N missing the mark. (Digression: I have at earlier junctions argued that the current WP:N guideline is too strict with other types of topics, e.g. villages in Africa. To give WP:N some credit, it hits the mark just about right when it comes to chess openings). The movement has had no significant impact or achievements. The idea behind the club is a nice one, but the only thing which they can point out as an achievement, having the city council pass a symbolic proclamation, is very local in scale, and something which goes in a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microlight Aviation

This company is not notable. Completely sourced with the company's webpage. Google News finds nothing, and "Microlight Aviation" +India on Google gets mainly marketing pages with only 484 hits. Also, it reads like a corporate portal and, apparently, has COI issues. Evb-wiki (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have been unable to source any references for this article beyond the company's own website, despite an extensive search, so cannot establish notability. - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real indication of notability is given here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE - two sources that seem to establish notability have now been added to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those new refs don't mention Microlight Aviation, and they do not support the new claim that the company was previously West Wind Aviation and Services. See Talk:Microlight_Aviation#West_Wind. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, note that the company's own website states that "To begin with, the company shall manufacture an ultra-modern microlight, the Vampire - MKI and the Super Genie Autogyro, both of which are slated to hit the market by May 2009." Any claim of notability is crystal balling. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree - the company only seems to have received any press at all for promising to do something in the future and the press coverage, sparse as it is, doesn't link the two companies together. The only reference that links the two companies is its own website. - Ahunt (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of BDSM topics

No function beyond a category, as with the AFD for List of hospice-related topics Benefix (talk) and WP:LISTCRUFT #7 Benefix (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The list contains redlinks to requested articles, which can't be done with a category. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Linguist's point is excellent.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the feeling most of those are redlinks to deleted articles. Benefix (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've determined that 16 of the 78 redlinked articles (or 20%) were previously deleted via AfD or PROD. A few were previously speedy deleted as copyvio or nonsense. Dcoetzee 01:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't Wikipedia supposed to have a contents and index navigation system in addition to search and category trees? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Glossary of BDSM Lugnuts (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael and Marisa

Musical group (a pair of kids really) with what seems to be local notability at best, a single album released through a non-notable record label and an impressive bio. I do not think this meets WP:MUSIC, even considering the unsourced claims of arena performances or anything else, but there's a lot here so I figured it deserves consensus. §FreeRangeFrog 17:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's make one thing clear. Their age is totally irrelevant. Kids of their age and even younger have become notable for music performances. Connie Talbot and The Naked Brothers Band come to mind (and no that last one isn't perverted) - Mgm|^(talk) 18:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this probably could have been speedied without controversy, but whether slowly or quickly it definitely needs to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Strong keep Clearly meets WP:N. [24] I think is yet another source. Coverage includes a major paper. This isn't pure "local news" stuff. Hobit (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should have mentioned that because of that coverage it meets WP:MUSIC's first criteria. Hobit (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They do not clearly meet WP:MUSIC. Perhaps WP:GNG, but that's questionable, otherwise I wouldn't have AfD'ed the article. Looking at those sources you added, two are basically the same geographical area (same website). The performances would need to be sourced in order to be considered. It seems to me that if this group is so notable, there would be far more news hits, which seem rather lacking at this time. Even locally. §FreeRangeFrog 02:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I didn't add anything. Secondly could you explain how the sources involved don't meet WP:MUSIC#1? We've got the Boston Herold as well as a national website review. Not to mention the more local sources...Hobit (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Resume highlights include: Whisky A Go Go and Roxy Nightclubs, Hollywood, CA; Ecofest at Lincoln Center, New York, NY; Rocketown, Nashville, TN; and Boston Celtics Professional Basketball Game (18,000 people). --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the coverage may be sufficient for them to meet WP:GNG, this reasoning is faulty. A lot of people get the chance to perform a couple of songs in a notable venue but the notability of a venue doesn't rub off on the people who perform there. As for the basketball game, those always have entertainment during half-time; those 18000 people came to view the basketball game, not for any singers. = Mgm|^(talk) 18:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was in response to the nom's suggestion that they had only local notability. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Did the local media pick up on their performances in these locations? They should have for your argument to make sense. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. See the Boston Herald article and the TRi-Town Transcript article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability demonstrated through coverage in reliable sources. And to toss another one into the mix, this article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kulanjan

Per the removed PROD tag. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick google reveals the following sources [25] [26] among others (which I can't access without a subscription). Definitely notable. Also can I ask that the nominator please include better reasoning in AfD pages? A link to a PROD diff is not helpful. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Very notable album by two highly notable musicians. No rationale for deletion provided. No evidence of an attempt to find sources to demonstrate notability before nominating. Allmusic and Rolling Stone reviews were easily found and have been added, along with additional sources.--Michig (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to delete, as you'll have read in my nom. I simply tagged to say that sources were needed, but the article's creator removed them and was unwilling to co-operate, so I reluctantly came down this route. As I said above. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's still not a reason for deletion. If you didn't want to delete this article, why on earth did you bring it here? If anyone removes perfectly valid tags indicating references required etc., simply re-add them, and if they keep getting removed, get an admin involved.--Michig (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I thought that this would be more harmless than getting into a revert-war. The article has now been improved, and the community consensus will make a better decision than I could alone. I'm really sorry if you think that I've wasted your time, though. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 09:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "harmless". AFD has a lot of articles to wade through without wasting people's time on articles that don't need deletion. If you have a dispute with another editr, don't bring it here. Look to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renegade Ride

Non-notable band. Speedy declined. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self-released, fails WP:MUSIC for the moment. §FreeRangeFrog 17:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One demo and a single, self-released album. No indication of any songs ever charting, and no national or international tour. Fails all aspects of WP:MUSIC and additionally fails WP:N due to lack of third-party coverage that I can see. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be re-created when published. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The American (Justin Allen novel)

Seems to fail our notability guidelines on historical fiction novels that are still being written. Tikiwont (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

Delete. I did some googling and the author appears to be non-notable as do his other books as well. A series of articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) all by the same editor in the past few days is suspicious in itself, but there is an obvious COI since this same editor states that Justin Allen is a client of his on his blog (link found on his user page). I conclude that this is promotional spam. The other articles should also be deleted unless solid sources are found during the course of this AFD. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no reviews about this book, or any coverage that would establish notability. It's not even clear if it has been published yet. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the author is a client of mine. He asked me to set up the wikipedia pages for him so as to provide another resource for the gathering of knowledge about himself and his works. I understand if the article on The American doesn't meet the guidelines for notability & so forth, but I contest that the page for the author himself and his published work, Slaves of the Shinar presents the author and his work in a balanced, straightforward fashion, providing synopsis of the novel & linking to reviews published by others. Comments & criticism of my writing are welcome, but the articles were all done at the same time merely because that was when I had time to do them all. --Berkleebassist (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Neither the article about the author, nor his other book are at issue here. It is strictly about The American. It's unclear from your statement if you are acknowledging that this article does not meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to worldcat.org, this book was published in 2008 [27]. And I was able to find two reliable source reviews for it. Don't understand why the article says its currently in-progress?? Also with regard to his other book Slaves of the Shinar, I found reviews from Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, Booklist and Kirkus Reviews. Will provide full citations if you would like.
- Keymer, David. "The American." Library Journal 133.17 (15 Oct. 2008): 52-52. Abstract: The article reviews the book "The American," by Justin Allen.
- "The American." Publishers Weekly 255.38 (22 Sep. 2008): 38-38. Abstract: The article reviews the book "The American," by Justin Allen. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, it seems to me that the book is not yet available in the online bookstores linked from world cat, so i don't know why there are libraries listing it already. (Maybe some list the ordered ones in their computer systems)? As for the references, they are one paragraph each and exactly the ones you can see on the Barnes and Nobel site[28] which also tells you that the book isn't available. So i wouldn't consider that reliable in the sense of either good fact checking nor in-depth coverage, but rather run-of the-mill coverage for an upcoming novel that nowadays also includes a Wikipedia article or at least an attempt to have one, but I see no particular reason to play along in this case.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect It's been redirected to the most appropriate place. If, in due time, the phrase takes on a life of its own (like "The Great Depression") it can be revisited. -- Avi (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Bear Market

I am concerned that this phrase is not notable in itself, that it has narrow usage, and that the article actually doesn't explain what the term means (though admittedly it is tagged as under construction). Notability - and the fact that the phrase's existence is only supported by one source - is the main concern, though. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 15:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is under construction. What's wrong with waiting a few days to see what the article will be like? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained, my concerns are that the subject is not notable. Waiting a few days will not prompt several major university essays on the subject - I never suggested that you won't do your best, I just don't believe that notability can be established. But I do stand to be corrected... this AfD will be closed in 5 days' time, and if I am surprised by the improvement, then I won't be too proud to withdraw the nom, pending others' votes. How's that sound? ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 16:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the article doesn't meet the criteria within 5 days, I won't object to it being deleted. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's certainly a few sources that use it, as well as the one in the article there's also this and this. I saved it from speedy for the existence of these sources that certainly gave it context. However I don't think they're anywhere enough to give it notability. Will happily change my vote if more substantial sources are found and I have no prejudice against recreation if the term does become in common use. Dpmuk (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Striking my delete vote and the entirity of the above comment. When originally speedied and then brought to AfD this page appeared to be about the term itself. Now the page has been moved to Bear Market of 2009 and appears to be more about what's happening in the markets than the phrase itself. Currently not sure where I stand on deleltion. Dpmuk (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - discussion etc. moved to this page's talkpage. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 16:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As a plausible search term being used in MSM; since it's already redirected, we're all good. That was easy! :) §FreeRangeFrog 17:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The Bear Market officially started in July 2008. However, it's a Global crisis. Redirect to "Global financial crisis of 2008–2009"Kgrr (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Bear Market of 2009 is certainly notable, but probably not all President Obama's fault. Add more info and views to article. Redddogg (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Then the article should be titled Bear Market of 2008 since that's when the bear market was declared. We don't have articles named "The declaration of independence of 1777" do we? If you keep it, it should be clean of NPOV. So far, it's an anti-Obama rant.Kgrr (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief summary to Global financial crisis of 2008-2009. It's relevant to that article that some media have blamed the continued crisis on Obama's presidency. It's WP:UNDUE to have an entire article about the idea, I think. JulesH (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I clicked on the link to the article at the top of this discussion, and was confused when I ended up at a different article than the one being discussed. As such, I changed Obama Bear Market to redirect to Bear Market of 2009, instead of Global financial crisis of 2008–2009? If the article ends up being deleted, then it would make sense for Obama Bear Market to redirect to Global financial crisis of 2008–2009, but while the article exists, I think the link at the top of this AfD discussion should redirect to it. Calathan (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A clear POV fork, given that there is no new bear market that has started in January. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It would be a POV fork of "Bear Market of 2008" if such an article existed. There is no separate bear market of 2009, its simply a continuation of the same bear market that started in 2008. The bear market of 2008 was declared in July 2008 when the stocks were already down 20% from its October 2007 high. There has not been a bull market between. It may be notable that Obama is being blamed by some media for the bear market of 2008. Kgrr (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Absurd premise; the market dropped 89% under Hoover. Does that mean it was four bear markets in a row? No, it was one really bad one. The 46.5% the market fell under George W. Bush, from 14,000 to 7552 in November, wasn't two bear markets. Individual legs down are not each their own bear market any more than individual snowstorms are each their own winter, nor is a winter split into the portion before and the portion after the New Year. Years are what they are and winters, in the Northern Hemisphere, straddle two of them. And the year doesn't cause the season, it's more like the other way around. A bear market ends only when there is sustained growth, not just some dead cat bounce or bear market rally. I began my experience of this editor assuming good faith, but I keep running into him; he has more than a complete failure to grasp economic fundamentals, he has a history of willfully prejudiced vandalism. For those suggesting a merge, consider the citations here. The same people quoted in the Bloomberg article as attributing this bear market to Obama work on Wall Street and sold the very credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations that got us into this mess, along with the overbought stocks of the companies that created, sold and insured them. Clearly these people were either guilty of ignorance about these instruments and the risk they carried, given their AAA ratings, or they are guilty of more than that, in that they suspected but vouched for them anyway. In the past several months they have been contributing to the vicious cycle by short selling the hardest-hit stocks, and jumping on any company with bad news. What this means is that they are betting on the market to go down and actually make money when it does. With that kind of a bet, they have no vested interest in seeing Obama cause market rallies in the near term. They know there will be more money to be made destroying companies than in waiting for any to be massively profitable again, and they want to deflect any attention or blame away from themselves for as long as possible, by blaming mortgage holders and politicians and CEOs and making whatever they can before they, too, are unemployed. Take my assessment of them as you like, but let's not pretend it's some objective sage with no self-interest and a broad view worthy of quoting in an encyclopedia on such a weighty issue.

If this quote: "I began my experience of this editor assuming good faith, but I keep running into him; he has more than a complete failure to grasp economic fundamentals, he has a history of willfully prejudiced vandalism." is about Pgreenfinch, I am in complete agreement. He is trolling the Financial crisis of 2007-2009 article as well. And he's also spammed my personal talk page with nonsense. --Nihilozero (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late for the recurrent ad hominem by Nihilozero. Anyway, guess who was the troller that brought a policized section in the said article ;-)) --Pgreenfinch (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article's second-longest quote is from an asset manager who says, “People thought there would be a brief Obama rally, and that hasn’t happened. It speaks to the carnage that’s in the economy and the lack of confidence in the measures that have been announced.” If they only expected a "brief Obama rally", that means they knew this emotion-driven rally would have been followed by a continuation of the downturn. But does the manager blame Obama? No, he blames the "carnage that's in the economy," which is obviously a continuance of October and November 2008, and "the lack of confidence in the measures that have been announced." Why the lack of confidence? Well, we were led by Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke and George W. Bush to believe their measures would be adequate to prevent this from happening, and they were wrong, so what could that same amount once again possibly be enough to accomplish now that we've gone down another 20%? And they told us it would be used to buy and insure troubled assets but they changed their mind and bought preferred stock instead; those troubled assets remain, and the stock is worth quite a bit less at the moment (though someday it will go back up if the market and the bad press doesn't destroy the companies first).

The article's longest quote is from another asset manager who says, “Prospects for recovery in the financial sector, despite all the government help, still seem rather remote. We’ve had a weak economy for a couple of years, and we aren’t seeing the stimulus working at this point. That is what weighs on investors’ minds.” Again, it doesn't sound like he's blaming Obama, he's acknowledging the economy has been heading south for a couple of years, and he points out that the stimulus isn't seen to be working. Bear in mind, no pun intended, that the perception of the stimulus he's talking about is based on the Bush one that's already been tried; Obama's hasn't even gone out yet.

In a section entitled "Blaming the Barack Obama administration," the Wiki article in question says a September '08 editorial in the Wall Street Journal "had predicted that an Obama presidency would be very damaging to the economy". What the article doesn't indicate is that this editorial was co-written by Phil Gramm, the former Republican senator from Texas during the governorship of George W. Bush, who had served in John McCain's campaign as his economic adviser. He's the one who stated, "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession...We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline." McCain denounced this statement and Gramm was persuaded to resign from McCain's campaign. Here, he was obviously trying to scare swing voters into fearing Obama and voting for McCain. Where does the editor of an encyclopedia get off citing partisan editorial "predictions" from disgraced campaign staff? What Gramm was trying to scare the reader about in that editorial was not that the mere fact of Obama taking office would be bad for the market, but that his policies would have an effect contrary to Gramm's ideology. So, considering that Obama's policies have not yet been implemented, much less caused an effect, any drop in the market at this point is merely the result of such fear-mongering and disparagement of Obama's future policies. If this were not so, Gramm's blatantly partisan opinion piece, which extolls the virtues of John McCain, and which precedes Obama's inauguration by more than four months, would not be the cited examination of the drop in the stock market which coincided with the first two months of Obama's tenure.

Another of the Journal stories cited was written by George H.W. Bush's chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. While he should know his economics, we should know his political affiliation, but the Wiki article doesn't mention this. It sadly goes to follow even in the mouth of this Depression that Republicans would instinctively and ideologically malign a Democratic president's plans instead of accepting they lost the White House and trying to be constructively critical in cobbling together a better Democratic plan? Me, I want Obama's economic recovery plans to succeed every bit as much as I wanted Bush's economic recovery actions to succeed. It isn't about the party or the ideology and it isn't about flippancy and finger-pointing, it's about understanding how the severity of a real and sustained recession or depression will affect the rest of us for years and years to come if people don't have jobs and homes and investments and we aren't on the slow but steady road to recovery by the early part of next year.

Here's the most egregious misrepresentation of an article. Either the editor's motives or his intellect are suspect when he cites NPR of all places for this quote by Jim Cramer: "This is the greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a president". Why do I have a problem with this? The article denounces Cramer's quote as a "juvenile rant". The subtitle to the article is, "The idea of blaming one person for the downfall of the economy with a gross domestic product of about $14 trillion, powered by 300 million people and engaged in complex global commerce is nuts." Everything Grundle2600 writes in the Wiki article is denounced in the NPR article, including one of his Wall Street Journal citations. It counters Grundles observation that the market dropped 20% under Obama with the fact that it dropped 46.5% under Bush. Yet Grundle2600 is uninterested in presenting this in his Wiki article? For that matter, how does Cramer not remember this 46.5% drop under Bush only left off a few months ago? There's videotape of him covering it day by woeful day on his show, as he recommends stock after stock that winds up tanking. Just because a Jim Cramer or a Phil Gramm makes a statement doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. And when it's shown to be incompatible with the facts, any encyclopedic usage should be to show that incompatibility, not propping up the disproven claim. The author calls the whole premise upon which Grundle2600 has built this article "infantilism". I would call it premeditated infanticide, as in killing the newborn to prevent any possibility he'll bring positive change, to prevent bipartisanship and working together for real solutions instead of sensationalizing negativity and passing around blame before anything even gets a chance to prove itself one way or the other. Obama wasn't my first choice, but he's the only President we've got for the next four years. If his policies end up failing, there are other things we can try. And then we can start to source a balanced view of what has happened. In the meantime, he has a mandate to try what the people voted him in to do, and we aren't here to presage doom.

As Kgrr states immediately above, "It may be notable that Obama is being blamed by some media for the bear market of 2008," but as he is aware, that's an entirely different point than the one made in this article, or its former or current title. Indeed this attempt to rewrite history and thwart a recovery is worthy of a mention, and so are the partisan affiliations and self-interest of those shameless enough to try it.

As for the article as it was conceived and as it stands, this sort of agenda-driven disingenuousness before anything has really happened, designed for no reason other than to perpetuate malaise and discontent and despair, doesn't belong in any encyclopedia article. Wikipedia articles are not the platform for such misanthropy.Abrazame (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - would it be possible to have a precis of all that? TLDR etc. Sorry! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding in part to Abrazame (above): Short and simple: This article is a POV-fork and a (misleading) joke.

Parts of the article could be merged/included in existing ones. Therefore:

Delete. I usually try not to comment on editors but I'll do so in this case. Grundle is really good in finding information (and I might ask him/her these days to find some "desperate" needed hard to find info for another article) but his/her edits fit usually more in news and editorials and not in an encyclopedic article (at least when it comes to politics). And finally: Opinions only don't make an article.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more sources that cite the phrase "Obama bear market," including a financial expert who says the phrase is being used by investors. Also, the phrase "Obama bear market" now has 12,000 hits at google. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Rename. The significant phenomenon is that the Dow has been cut in half since October 2007. So one might want to call the article US bear market of 2007-2009, incorporating both Bear Market of 2008 and Obama Bear Market. Of course that period is coextensive with the subprime crisis and global financial crisis, but I think a 50% fall in the world's major stock index is a sufficiently noteworthy aspect of the overall event to warrant an article of its own. Mporter (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It should be redirected to one of the global crisis pages, which already have enough POV blaming Dlazzaro (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fed up with the weird and stereotyped politization in those various "crisis" articles, like is happening also in the Financial crisis one. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt I acted out of line in doing so, but I have made the merge/redirect I recommended. Both Obama Bear Market and Bear Market of 2008 now point to US bear market of 2007-2009, which contains almost everything from both articles. Mporter (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the merged article. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Wow, there are quite a few weak arguments here. On the one hand, "it's interesting" isn't a valid reason to keep the article. On the other hand, "total cruft" is not a well thought-out rationale. And as there are too many comments to justify a relist, I'm unable to determine consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Countries With Their First Major League Player

Although possibly interesting, is this list of any practical use ? (whether practical use is a factor in determining inclusion is another matter...) CultureDrone (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm new at this but this seems pretty notable to me. It also appears to me as a good reference point. I decided to do this because i was looking for the information. I also think that if this is linked to some MLB articles it will grow. Maybe by someone that knows this stuff better than i do.Passedflatus (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial WP:LISTCRUFT of interest to a very little number of people. No-one in Afghanistan is going to care where their compatriots play baseball. Benefix (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you mentioned afghanistan, because war is probably the biggest factor in making baseball the global sport it is today. Besides i think that baseball fans in other countries like Japan or Venezuela are probably curious who is the first major leaguer from their country.Passedflatus (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is interesting and no worse than lots of other lists on WP. It could actually be useful to researchers on baseball history. Redddogg (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LISTCRUFT! Spiesr (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total cruft. Vistro (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ OK, I guess ~~Original research.~~ Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Original research? It is all referenced from an independent source. Original research is meant to prevent a user's own opinions, experiences, and arguments. These are merely facts. If you count this article as original research then half of all our Major League Baseball stuff would have to go in the waste basket. Kingturtle (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. However, the entry for USA is bogus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I modified the USA entry to point to the first game in 1871. The retrosheet page doesn't have the box score, but does list all the players who debuted that day, and presumably all or most of them count. And I can't be voting "delete" on an article I'm modifying, now can I? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Information such as "first major league player from Cuba" is frequently mentioned in Wikipedia articles and elsewhere, so it is useful to organize this information in a list. References have been added, so the list now meets Wikipedia policies for verifiability and notability guidelines. BRMo (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DEFINITELY keep this. This is a terrific idea for an article. It is referenced, and it is finite. It is of interest. I'm only sorry I didn't think of this first. Kingturtle (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Don't let the fact that this was created by a brand new user prejudice you against this article. Don't let the fact that the new user's name is Diarrheachacha prejudice you either. Kingturtle (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or that the user's new name was also blocked, in fact he's been blocked from editing his own talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Referenced and interesting. Borgarde (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an interesting list, though it could use some work. My only two problems are that the title of the article is confusing and Baseball Almanac is generally not considered a WP:RS, but those could easily/obviously be fixed. black ngold29 14:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on both counts with the above. I was concerned about this article on first look because of the use of B-A, but if WP:BASEBALL project members feel it can be solved, I certainly won't stand in the way. Keep - KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Interesting and useful. I wonder if a less awkward title could be found, but the list should be kept and expanded. Rlendog (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename -- Perhaps List of the first players by nationality to play Major League Baseball? caknuck _° remains gainfully employed 01:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems pretty arbitrary to me. It's interesting, but is it encyclopaedic? Should someone create List of Countries With Their First Fußball-Bundesliga Player next? --Conti|✉ 01:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flex-it

No evidence of notability, no independent sources. Written in near advert terms. SummerPhD (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Corporate advert; no indication that the software is notable in any way. §FreeRangeFrog 17:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any evidence that suggests this is a notable software product. Peacock (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Should have been speedied.--Sloane (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic toilet etiquette

AfDs for this article:

This article was nominated for deletion almost two years ago. The result of the discussion was a consensus to merge the article into Hygiene in Islam (an article which is now at Islamic hygienical jurisprudence). However, no merge tag was ever added to the page, and no merge ever actually took place. However, I'm going to argue now for an actual deletion. The content here is far too detailed for an encyclopedia article (since Wikipedia is not a how-to guide) and I certainly wouldn't want to see it taking up space in the Islamic hygienical jurisprudence article. Powers ^T 14:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually find it a useful article. Chzz ► 15:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not encyclopedic in nature. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Useful and interesting~~ Informative information that is not only encyclopedic in nature, but adds to the value of wikipedia and helps to promote understanding of cultural differences. Can be further developed and rewritten to address nominators concerns. --Nsaum75 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not likely. If the step-by-step guide is removed, what's left will be too trivial for anything but inclusion in a larger article. Powers ^T 23:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Islamic hygienical jurisprudence, so any actually useful information is accessible to editors. I agree that WP:NOT#HOWTO applies. Just because someone finds it useful or interesting is not reason enough to keep. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should also point out that there's no evidence of notability here. Powers ^T 15:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per above, this is a clear how-to. §FreeRangeFrog 17:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this is clearly a how-to guide. Keep arguments are WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING. Basically, no good reason to keep this as a stand-alone article, and several good reasons (including WP:NOT#HOWTO) not to. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It would be possible to make an argument to keep this on the basis of WP:CSB but I don't think there's enough encyclopaedic material there to fill an article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as we delete all sets of arbitrary rules for going to the bathroom, I think we're okay. =) Powers ^T 22:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOEFFORT. I found no difficulty in adding a citation to this article. The HOW-TO objection seems slight in that the article obviously has to provide details of the rules before going on to discuss their origin and consequences. When the latter are fleshed out, it will be fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:NOEFFORT - who has claimed that we should delete because no one is working on the article? Who has claimed it would be difficult to add a citation? --Explodicle (T/C) 23:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination states clearly that a merger was proposed two years ago and that the article should deleted because this was not done. This is the NOEFFORT argument which is weak because the complaint would be better addressed by performing the merger rather than starting this irrelevant AFD process. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I understand. I took that as a history of the article followed by a WP:NOT#HOWTO argument, but I can see how one can infer a relationship between the two. --Explodicle (T/C) 23:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was that it had been agreed long ago that we don't need an article on this topic. I in no way meant to imply that it should be deleted simply because no one has been working on it. It has undergone revision since the original AfD, which is why I didn't just speedily merge it. Powers ^T 00:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting article, to be improved. --Edcolins (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that "It's interesting" and "it's useful" are not generally considered valid reasons to keep an article. Powers ^T 20:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This certainly falls under WP:NOTGUIDE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not think howto applies to the article as a whole, as it can be developed. I assume that there is extensive discussion in the appropriate sources (I need to say "assume" here, as finding them is a matter of printed sources that I cannot read). Every bit as encyclopedic a topic as other areas of Islamic or other religious law. This subject only apparently appears absurd. This is partially similar to other cultures in interesting ways, and we could use some additional articles on parallel topics. The appropriate catchphrase is rather notcensored. DGG (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would you think of removing the "how-to" rules section, and moving the rest back to the parent article? The parent article is very short, and it might be more convenient for the reader to just get everything there until the toilet section gets expanded. --Explodicle (T/C) 23:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article consists of a guide (WP:NOTGUIDE), the rest can be merged to the hygiene article.--Sloane (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And this isn't a how to guide, it is a explanation on what they believe in and do. No one in the modern world(who has a computer that is, since those without internet are stilling living in a primitive miserable barbaric state), is going to actually consider using this is a guide on what to do. Dream Focus 04:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could easily write any number of step-by-step descriptions that no one would actually consider using. That doesn't make them appropriate for inclusion. Powers ^T 12:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of citations from reliable sources. Article is a vandalism magnet and when I first read it I thought it was a hoax. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are clean-up issues. Rules and rituals whether religious and/or culturally based help define our lives. Daily rituals discussed encyclopedicly certainly can work fine. I share the concerns with how-to guide but that is tied to understanding the what why and history of rituals, That's an editing issue, first you pick up a spoon vs. a spoon is held aloft. These are fixable issues. -- Banjeboi 10:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One problem is that the link for the main source for this was broken; the "Compendium of Muslim Texts" was moved from the USC web site to the MSA West website. So that takes care of verifiability in at least one reliable source. Notability is established by many other references: For example, it is an issue in the 2012 Olympics that toilets need to be built that don't face Mecca; here's an article that describes many rituals, including those involving the toilet; a BBC News piece is called "Jail toilets face away from Mecca"; and here's a whole chapter in the Encyclopaedia of Islam on various etiquettes, including toilet etiquette; and here's a section on the "Etiquette of Going to the Bathroom" in The Pillars of Islam & Iman. DHowell (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as encyclopedic and sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air On Demand

Non-notable HVAC contractor. Fails everything. SummerPhD (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam Chzz ► 15:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SPAM. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Should have been speedied.--Sloane (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Themfromspace (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Degree programs at the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

This is a directory of courses offered by a university. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other articles that basically talk of the degree programs being offered by the school, such as the Degree programs at NUST, Degree programs at Boston College, Degree programs at Brown University, Degree Programs at Ohio Wesleyan University, Degree programs at NUST, etc. The article I created is basically the same as the other mentioned articles that have been kept here at the site for it also deals with the curricula and degrees offered by the University. Elcosamagna (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment other stuff exists is not considered to be a good argument against deletion. TrulyBlue (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article also discusses something about the PLM curricula that is supported by references. I'm going to further cite references and improve the article so it will satisfy inclusion. Thanks.

Elcosamagna (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. No independent, reliable sources about this topic, fails WP:V. Suggest that the rest of the "Degree Progams at ____" articles found by Elcosamagna be rolled into this AfD as well. -Atmoz (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Wikipedia is not a prospectus. Nuttah (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory service -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Created by banned user. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Jamie, Delete per WP:NOT. THF (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Martial Solal. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Works

Article about a nonnotable book with no reliable sources found after a search on google. Themfromspace (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Martial Sola; notable musician, not so notable book Chzz ► 14:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge - I would try WorldCat but I doubt this is even there, never mind library holdings. A redirect to the author's page is fine. §FreeRangeFrog 19:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noone sidputes the notability of Myer as a chain in this debate, but the consensus of this discussion is that the article violates WP:NOTDIR Fritzpoll (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myer stores

AfDs for this article:

Previous AFD closed as "delete", overturned by DRV discussion, and relisting here. I have an opinion on this one and have entered it below. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the people who voted to delete based on WP:NOTDIR, although some more explanation is in order. The article here is a WP:LIST, where none of the individual shops have, or should have, articles. Hence the "development" and "navigation" purpose of the lists are not present. That leaves "information", and in this case I think the type of information here is overdetailed, far beyond what is common for other store chains. Each entry is very short, with no prose added to it. People looking for a particular store do not turn to encyclopedias to find one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that Myer's flagship store in central Melbourne would easily meet WP:N/WP:ORG and suspect that some of the other stores would as well (eg, the flagship store in central Sydney). Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As would those in Perth and Hobart. Orderinchaos 07:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This kind of information belongs on the store's website, not in an encyclopedia. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually I am of the view that the first store, in Bendigo, at least should have an article. Myer has been a major institution in Australian life since 1900 when this first store was opened, so this first one at least is important. Then there is the common vernacular expression, "more front than Myers", which refers to the Bourke Street store. Chadstone shopping centre, in the suburbs of Melbourne, likes to style itself as the largest shopping centre in the southern hemisphere. The Myer store there was one of the first built so that makes it important/notable. So there's three to fit a notable criteria in my view. Some of the others, maybe not, but it's hard to distinguish whether one is or is not notable especially when there are links from this list to the relevant shopping centres in nearly all cases.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just stuff that should have coverage in the Myer like they do with Walmart etc. Gnan garra 04:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At first glance I was in agreement with the idea of deleting this list, but this is an example of attempting to determine why the list was created in the first place. If you follow the links from this list to, say, Chadstone shopping centre, you can then link to David Jones (Australia's second major department store chain). The main article on David Jones includes a list of that chain's Australian stores. This leads me to the view that this Myer store list probably originated in that chain's main article and was moved to its own page as the list was getting unwieldy. If this list is deleted then it might as well be put back on the main Myer page (to bring it into line with David Jones), which would then lead us to the argument that the Myer page was getting too long again. I'd rather have the list of Myer stores on its own page, and thereby complete the circle of information about that department store, rather than either a) have a very long main article, or b) have this argument again in 12 months' time when it is re-created. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An entirely unencyclopedic list of stores. What makes a list of Myer stores more encyclopedic than, say, a list of Coles Supermarkets or McDonalds outlets? Wikipedia is not the White Pages. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Myer stores are major businesses, and when stores are opened or closed this is covered in serious stories in the business sections of major newspapers. While few stores are notable individually, together a list of them meets the relevant inclusion guidelines. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Doesn't anyone realize that plenty of discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bloomingdale's locations have almost unanimously resulted in delete, and absolutely no other retail chain article has a store list? Seriously though, I see no purpose in listing stores, as retail outlets open and close all the time. There is almost never a singular source to verify all of the locations in a chain (especially not former locations), so this list fails WP:V entirely. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why does there need to be a single source? - this isn't a requirement for lists and certainly isn't needed to meet WP:V. It should be possible to easily cite this list from newspaper archives and the like. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We have a single source, in the form of the BOMA publication. And Myer/David Jones do not "open and close all the time" - it's a big event when they do. Orderinchaos 07:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the DRV I !voted for this to be re-listed, but that was procedural rather than based on the merits of the article, and I now hope to see this closed as a proper deletion per User:Sjakkalle's well-reasoned points.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with respect to Mattinbgn's comment above, Myer stores are more notable than McDonalds and whatnot if only because they're not everywhere. There must be thousands of McDonalds in Australia, but individual Myer stores are almost always major business concerns that employ more people and have more impact in their communities than a fast food joint or a supermarket. With that said, I wouldn't object to a merge with Myer. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, The list can be turned into a well sourced encyclopedic list but just needs some editors willing to clean it up. Per Lankiveil what has said. Myer unlike Harvey Norman, Big W, Target, Kmart ect Myer doesn't have stores in most regional towns and cites and doesn't even have a store in the Northern Territory (Darwin is the only Capital city not to have one) and there is no really address's in the list so I don't really see the white pages argument. Bidgee (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails guidelines per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WWGB (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 are you saying it fails? Orderinchaos 07:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Myer and David Jones are kind of unique in the Australian context and, as others have mentioned, their moving into or out of particular shopping centres is often the topic of much RS coverage. See Greensborough Plaza for an example of the sort of reliable source coverage which does exist out there on these sorts of things, plus the once-every-two-years BOMA/Property Council of Australia publication which is a reliable source and is in state libraries. The same would not go for a discount store, supermarket or whatever. I also point the closing admin to the comments by Thewinchester in the first debate. A merge with Myer would be a poor second choice. Orderinchaos 07:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least merge with Myer, but this could easily be turned into a well-sourced article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonelygirl16 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous reasons in the first AFD. A list of stores can simply be found on their website. The article in this form serves as pointless duplication which violates WP:NOTDIR. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 07:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Their page does not list historic stores. Orderinchaos 01:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment and the point is? Also, I personally don't think the average Wikipedia reader would want to know how big a store is in square metres either. My point stands that the article in its current form is pointless duplication with statistics to make it look like myer"cruft". --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 02:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory, and it's advertising to boot. Deb (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you please explain how this list is advertising? It doesn't seem to violate any of the conditions at WP:NOTADVERTISING. Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its sole useful purpose is to tell people where to go if they want to buy something from this store. Deb (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not advertising, but it's a clear directory. Secret ^account 22:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sigh! again, as per my rationale of not dir in that discussion delete WP:NOT#DIR a resource for conducting business the list isnt Myre stores, its a list of Shopping Centres in which Myers are a tennant, Myers is nothing different to Walmart, or other Australian retailers Target, Woolworths, Coles, Big W, Kmart, IGA etc all of which are marque tennents that affect the costs of rent. Maybe a conversion to a template is ok, but really the notable stores should be covered in the prose like WalMart the rest is nothing more than conducting business Gnangarra 14:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[29] as major retailer Myers is notable there no question of that but they arent any more notable than any other marque tennent in any shopping centre. Gnan garra 04:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, and we don't have a list of Tesco stores, List of Dunnes Stores stores, etc. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a list of stores for IKEA (List of IKEA stores) however it doesn't have individual stores but the Myer store list could be changed into the list like the IKEA list but rather having the country it can be state by state. Bidgee (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, sorry I remembered similar articles were deleted for the same reasons, and most of these lists were removed from the parent page. Company websites has a list of these stores for a reason. Secret ^account 22:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigrid Åhs

Non-notable model. Supposedly "gained fame around the world as a look alike to the Baywatch actress Pamela Anderson." And she had "a number of appearances on American and Swedish and other international television shows" and won a non-notable beauty pagent. No reliable sources provided or found. Prod disputed based on "claim of notability". (I've been told I look like Ruth Westheimer. Where's my article?) SummerPhD (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even in Swedish news Chzz ► 15:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO in every way. Pageant claims are unsourced and the source links are far from WP:RS, assuming they worked. §FreeRangeFrog 17:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. --Sloane (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is this brief mention. But there's no substantial coverage of her that I can find. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep arguments are not compelling. Two of the arguments are basing it on past precedent, citing a WikiProject guideline as representing existing consensus. Such a guideline cannot override the policy of WP:BIO or our various other guidelines - the WikiProject guidelines clearly do not reflect a broad consenus, as evidenced here and elsewhere. WP:DGFA requires me to consider BLP in these cases as well as looking at the rough consensus. I see consensus in this discussion, based ont he strength of arguments to delete this article. Following this closure, I will make an editorial change and set up a redirect for navigational purposes - but the outcome of the AfD stands Fritzpoll (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Grace

AfDs for this article:

Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace. Clearly the "SNOW" keep was rather controversial, with several people arguing to "overturn and delete" at the DRV here. The subject is a current participant in the Idol series, and there is a question as to whether that is notable enough for a biography. (My personal view is that this is somewhat beyond ONEEVENT since Idol is more of a series than an news event, but acknowledge that even finalists often become fairly obscure after the season is over.) I'm neutral on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep has enough news cites to fulfill WP:N Chzz ► 15:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge and redirect - Over half of the DRV participants (11/19) argued for "overturn and delete/redirect" with another arguing to overturn and either redirect or relist. The DRV nom outlined that 11 of the 14 keep votes in the original AFD were based on a Wikiproject's guide that attempted to supersede WP:N. The community has not accepted this weakening of notability standards, which the subject fails to meet. Simply appearing on a reality TV show does not make one notable. ₳dam Zel 15:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - A project's guidelines for inclusion do not trump those of Wikipedia as a whole, no way. This isn't the English Wikipedia with a smaller autonomous Idol Wikipedia within. If the person fails WP:BIO and/or WP:CREATIVE then the article must go. §FreeRangeFrog 17:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has argued this fails WP:BIO. The sources pretty clearly show it does. Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete per consensus at the DRV, which makes me wonder why this was relisted. Black Kite 21:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not for nothing, but this should be a multi-article nom. All of the Idol finalists have an article at this point, and many of them are no more or less notable than Alexis Grace. Not making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, just pointing out that there are a number of other articles that could be tossed in with this AfD. --72.226.206.86 (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly other articles on current (and previous) contestants that are no better than this one, but this AfD is a direct result of a relisting at DRV, hence is a single nomination. Black Kite 22:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect Ejfetters (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and cancel nomination based on past precedence for finalists. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I am disturbed by the failure to assume good faith in the DRV and related discussions. The Wikiproject criteria appear to do nothing more than accurately reflect the pre-existing consensus about which contestants can safely be presumed to meet the general notability standards. Because these finalists receive extensive press coverage. It is sad that so many Americans are able to name more Idol finalists than Supreme Court Judges or American Nobel Prize Winners etc, and they have much more interest in them. But that is the way things are. Google News says there are almost 1500 articles about Alexis Grace in the last month, which shows the Wikiproject guideline was an accurate predictor. It is much more consistent with the GNG than WP:ATHLETE and (shudder) WP:PORNBIO have been. And the attempt to put thumbs on the scale by people who want the article deleted is unfair. I don't think I ever saw a box stuck into a deletion discussion like the one here, which does not contribute to the kind of reasonable discussion that we are supposed to be having. As i have said elsewhere, I do a lot of volunteering at local libraries. In the last week, people have often asked for help on searching for the AI finalists online. When a subject is one that people want to look up information on, it is one that Wikipedia ought to keep. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple shows over a period of time do not make for a single event. Keep as meeting the GNG (by a mile, a news search turns up a crazy number of hits). Oh, WP:BIO is passed due to those same sources. 21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. A single season of American Idol (or similar shows) is a single event for notability purposes and if all the press coverage is coverage of the show that mentions her incidentally than she should not have a stand alone article. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do we distinguish a single event from something that's not? I mean if I person is notable for playing MLB, isn't that a single event (playing baseball in the majors)? To me, winning the lotto is a single event. Or getting killed. Or even winning "Who wants to be a millionaire" as it happens all at once (and thus is a single event). But something that is spread out over a season of TV (which I think this is) isn't a single event in my opinion. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by the definition I am using most MLB players (and other professional sports people of average notability) would fall under BLP1E, whether that's a bug or a feature depends on one's point of view, I guess. Though I think that permastubs about sports figures are much less problematic than articles such as this which tend, in my experience, to attract much more BLP problematic gossip and rumour. It seems to me that saying that spreading out a contest over a TV season makes it inherently more than one event is problematic because it gives too much importance to the "artistic" decision of how to stage the contest and not enough to the issue of what coverage there is and of what quality. I believe that assigning inherent notability to people based on reality/contest show participation is problematic because it assumes the existence of sources to write a biography. However, if all the sources focus exclusively on on one (series of) event(s), i.e. their participation in the show/contest there isn't anything to say that shouldn't be properly handled in the article on the season and the logic of BLP1E applies. The point of "one event" is to say that people who are only covered in reliable sources in relation to a single achievement, activity, or event should only have that aspect of their lives covered in Wikipedia and that a stand-alone biography is generally not appropriate. Of course there also exist people who, while only notable for a single event, activity, or act have had their whole lives covered in reliable sources. We should have biographies of those people, BLP1E notwithstanding; but we shouldn't have ones that cover people who are only covered as a part or something else even if that event runs for 6 months. I don't claim a broad consensus for the particulars of my view, though I do feel that it is the best reading of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:BLP1E. It certainly has the disadvantage of requiring an individualized inquiry into sources and not being ammenible to per se rules like WP:ATHLETE. But that's a feature not a bug. We write from sources and their coverage and weight whould be reflected in both the structure and the content of the encyclopedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer :) I do disagree with your reading of BLP1E. "Spreading out" the contest isn't just an artisitic decision, its about how long people will pay attention to these folks. Rather than a 1-shot show, if there is enough interest that millions of people will watch the person over an extended period of time (months I think in this case) I think we have evidence of real notability of the person. Toss in the massive amount of coverage in the media and you've got an easily written article of a notable person. Thanks for the response! Hobit (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a famous assassin also a "one event" celebrity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.183.233 (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ... discospinster _talk 19:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anomotodon

~~Possible hoax, no sources available. No assertion of notability.~~ Withdrawn. ←Spidern → 13:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know where you're getting "no sources available," but this and this and this certainly establish the verifiability of the genus. When I get a bit of time, I'll add a couple of refs to the article. Deor (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Not quite sure how I missed those, thanks. I hereby withdraw my nomination for this AfD. ←Spidern → 14:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Brant Hansen. and Jeff Elbel. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell to Juliet

Non-notable band, with a bit of conflict of interest as well. Little sourcing on the article, and no sources available on Google News. CyberGhostface (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Two self-released albums of no notability, no reliable sources provided or found. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 15:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think I CSD'ed this a few days ago. The content is the same, the band still fails WP:MUSIC. §FreeRangeFrog 19:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You speedied this? It seems that this doesn't fit under the speedy deletion requirements. Be careful with CSD's, because a misjudged could be taken as WP:BITEY, and going through an afd, and doing it the long way, is better than turning off new editors to editing wikipedia because of a misused speedy. I know how tempting it is just to put a speedy tag on an article that you think has no chance of making it through afd, but just be careful about it. That said, you're doing a great job! Regards, FingersOnRoids 01:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No one has yet addressed the points I raised on the discussion board for FTJ. I recognize that I am a newbie and therefore my input is discounted, but I still think the points I raised are valid. I will note that since the AFD page insists on disclosure of a vested interest, I have been a fan of Farewell to Juliet for years. One member of FTJ is now a syndicated radio host (Brant Hansen) and another is a musician who has been in several signed bands and is a freelance journalist who has been published in the Chicago Sun-Times (Jeff Elbel). Both have their own wikipedia articles and these facts are mentioned in the article so that ought to address the claims against notability (see WP:MUSIC criteria for musicians #6). Despite the COI, the content meets the standards for NPOV. As for reliable sources I referenced the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music which is reliable and third-party. As for the lack of sources on Google News my search pulled up one article, but you have to be a registered user to read it so I didn't reference it in the article.[30] Finally, WP:MUSIC also recommends allmusic as a reliable source, but there are factual errors concerning FTJ on allmusic so I decided that it would be better to omit this inaccurate information than to include a respected source. - Arfp (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions are not discounted. Conflict of interest is not grounds for deletion, either. People base their opinions on AfD on the validity of the sources given to establish notability. Of all the sources you have there, I would consider maybe this as reliable, and maybe the encyclopedia. But a notable band never has problem establishing notability, so I would want to see many more of those as sources. As for allmusic, frankly I tend to discount the musician profiles there as rather opinionated, although I have no problem with referencing them as a secondary source. And finally, notability is not inherited, at least not in most cases. The two former members of the band that you cite as supporting references are themselves not notable enough to carry the band's profile, at least in my opinion. That said, I never have a problem reversing myself on an AfD, so if you do come up with additional valid, reliable sources, do cite them in the article. As of now I'm not convinced this band is even particularly notable within their musical niche, sorry. §FreeRangeFrog 01:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks freerangefrog for addressing the issues I raised. I recognize that notability is in the eye of the beholder. Among people I know who listen to this type of music, FTJ may not be famous, but they are well-known or "notable" if you will. I have done my best to source that opinion accordingly. I agree that notable bands today generally don't have a problem establishing notability, but do keep in mind that this band has been defunct for more than a decade, and I don't believe that information on notable indie bands was as prevalent in 1998 as it is today. I have found that the Encyclopedia that I referenced is the most comprehensive, accessible, and reliable source about Christian music so whether or not that makes FTJ notable is up for debate, but I don't think that reliability of the source is an issue. I already acknowledged my bias as a fan and perceived lack of credibility as a newbie, so I really feel that cyberghostface's addition of the spa tag was unnecessary and somewhat obvious. I have been a reader of wikipedia for sometime and happened to notice the original FTJ deletion proposal and didn't think that it ought to be deleted so it was in fact the impetus for me to join and edit. I have not, as of yet, edited other articles (other than to give credit to Steve Hindalong for his writing for FTJ) because this is a discussion that is currently going on and ought to be addressed sooner than later. However, I intend to use my knowledge of Christian music to add and edit more pages in the future, for whatever that is worth. - Arfp (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

90% of the time whenever there's an AFD of a subject w/COI, there's always a bunch of newly registered SPA accounts popping up to say "Keep". I once witnessed an AFD where the admin kept an article on some movie website based on the number of votes, and he had failed to realize that 90% of the "Keep"s were all newly registered accounts working for the website. So whenever I do an AFD, I always add the "SPA" template if the user is new and has only edited the related article. But I admit to acting in haste in this occasion because I didn't fully read your comment, so I'll remove the tag.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks cyberghostface, I didn't mean to jump down your throat. I should have recognized that there are situations like the one you described and that isn't good for WP or anyone who appreciates it. Like I said, I recognize that I am currently an SPA with very little WP editing experience, but I am working on that. I would encourage you to reconsider and take a look at the sources that have been added as well as my points concerning notability above. Obviously notability of individuals doesn't prove notability of a band, but I think it is a good start. I think the debate on FTJ is out in the open now and I have stated my case for them and now it is up to others to decide. I am now working on some additional research, but still adding to FTJ as I find things pertaining to them. - Arfp (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 but only just. While the crossrhythms.co.uk is a reliable source, and non-trivial at that, the only other one I could find was on another Christian music site, with this interview & this review. Christianitytoday.com/music & jesusfreakhideout.com searches bought up little else mind you, as did a general Ghit search. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other Christian music site you reference is well known and respected in Christian music circles. It is an online magazine that also hosts the Cornerstone Festival's Press Tent (COI notice, I have done some work for the Phantom Tollbooth). - Arfp (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - How about merging the info into Brant Hansen and Jeff Elbel? Brant Hansen has no information on him being part of the band, and Jeff Elbel only mentions the discography. FingersOnRoids 01:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete — Non-admin closure; speedy by User:Nja247 §FreeRangeFrog 17:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original ECW

The article covers the same subject as Extreme Championship Wrestling, contains no substantial information that's not already in that article, and would not make a useful redirect. My WP:PROD tag was removed with the explanation that "i just made it unlike another article", but no information was added that Extreme Championship Wrestling doesn't already contain. Unscented (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Unscented (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Extreme Championship Wrestling - useless, unnecessary article. All the information contained in this article is already in the Extreme Championship Wrestling article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyright violation - see http://prowrestling.about.com/od/historyofwrestling/p/historyofecw.htm. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete COPYVIO as noted Chzz ► 15:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have tagged the page for Speedy Deletion, as suggested.--Unscented (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted. Was a redirect to nowhere. Wily D 15:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1983 Buenos Aires Grand Prix tennis

tennis tournament never occurred Mayumashu (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Mayumashu is author of the article, so G7 applies. Tagged. JulesH (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our Last Summer

AfDs for this article:

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Album track only, never released as a single in any territory Paul75 (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Super Trouper (album) as we did with another song on the same album. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Piper (ABBA song)) The textsheet for my copy of the Super Trouper CD noted that "Our Last Summer" was ABBA's favorite song of Super Trouper, but I don't think it ever was a single. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is sourced, with "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Song was "performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups": ABBA, A*Teens and Hazell Dean. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above Chzz ► 15:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NSONGS due to coverage by multiple notable artists. Songs do not have to be released as singles to be notable. While most ABBA album tracks certainly are not notable, this one, in addition to ceverage by other artists, was deemed important enough for inclusion in an ABBA greatest hits album, plus of course it was covered in the Mamma Mia show and movie. And there are already a number of sources in the article and others available to expand the article further, if someone wants to. I'm not sure what changed since the prior AfD a few months ago resulted in a consensus to keep that warranted another AfD (only thing that changed that I am aware of is release of the Mamma Mia DVD that included this song, which should not have reduced its notability), but it still warrants keep. Rlendog (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being included on two ABBA tribute albums is not really being "covered by multiple artists" and I don't believe that the fact the song was in a successful movie/theatre show is enough to make the song notable in itself. The information can readily be assimilated into either the Super Trouper article or the Mamma Mia! article. Paul75 (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Except that it has been recorded by at least three artists notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Being in a successful movie and theater show may not make the song notable in itself, but adds extra weight to the notability from its multiple recording artists and multiple sources. After all, this particular song was one of the few album tracks chosen for that movie/show, which implies some level of additional notability to this particular song over other album tracks (and some singles that weren't chosen either). Rlendog (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment it was most likely chosen to be in the musical/film simply because the lyrics fitted the story, not because of some "special" notabilityPaul75 (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable non-charting song. JamesBurns (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it meets the criteria in WP:MUSIC#Songs stating that songs "that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Rlendog (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - song which did not chart. JoannaMinogue (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, all songs that chart are notable (though might not warrent articles). That said, not charting does not make the song non-notable, as discussed above. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not convinced this is a notable track. A-Kartoffel (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I'm borderline on this one. I think it just barely passes WP:NSONGS, per SummerPhd's argument. It is in fact preformed by three independent music groups, but I can see that the fact that the song was never released as a single does detract from its notability. However, in my opinion, it is just notable enough. FingersOnRoids 01:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Hop

Makes an assertion of notability so this can't be speedied. A google search can't find any reliable sources that discuss her / it in any detail to meet WP:V or WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bio about a non-notable person that pretends to be an article about a non-notable dance. No reliable sources provided or found. Not to be confused with the Lindy Hop, one would have to suppose. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any ref Chzz ► 15:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a dance that has become an international sensation, there is a surprising lack of coverage about it. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effective unemployment rate

I wish to assert my right to challenge and remove unverifiable material. As far as I am concerned it's entirely unverifiable because I don't even know whose definition it's supposed to be. Is it perhaps just an American thing, or is it a global concept? RenegadeMonster (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this isn't sourced at the moment, a glance at google tells me it would be possible to replace this material with a well-sourced article with this title.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be great. In the meantime can we please remove this unverifiable material? RenegadeMonster (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Replace it with a stub. You don't need AfD to remove unverifiable material, see WP:BURDEN.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As S Marshall; nom please feel free to hack it to pieces Chzz ► 15:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unemployment#Limitations_of_the_unemployment_definition until someone is ready to add content and make it a worthwhile article. Hard to stubify that which barely has content. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And if the someone lacks the privilege to create an article? Stubs draw attention, allow anyone to add material, and are a well-tested fixture of Wikipedia. – 74 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note discussion at Talk:Unemployment#Effective_unemployment_rate Power.corrupts (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub unless a suitable merge & redirect target exists. – 74 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Impossible Princess. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too Far

Fails notability per WP:SONGS. Limited promotional release only, never an official single Paul75 (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 15:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable non-charting song. JamesBurns (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Impossible Princess as a somewhat plausible search term - single is definitely not notable on its own though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - non notable song. JoannaMinogue (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audioloop

Blatent advertizing, speedy declined Chzz ► 10:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep Seems notable, nothing a good cleanup couldn't fix. Consider cleanup tags rather than tagging for deletion. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: have you read Wikipedia:Speedy keep? Which of the criteria on that page do you think applies to this discussion? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, overzealous use of the word speedy there! Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry for nit-picking. It's just something that irritates me :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And this is very close to a speedy-spam in my mind. It doesn't seem notable to me, 2500 users is hardly a lot in a year, it has no external sources to back up those claims anyway. If you cleaned up the unsourced claims and peacock words, you'd be left with nothing much, and certainly nothing notable. --Ged UK 13:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no notability asserted. Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, spamtacular. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N as there is no significant coverage about the topic of the article. Without this there is only a promotional advert. Themfromspace (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant content to Steinberg. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. A few regurgitated press releases about their mix contest at launch -- Whpq (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probationer (disambiguation)

Of debatable use. The page refers to a choir probationer, which seems to be a valid usage, but since there is no article on choir probationers, the disambig page has nothing to disambiguate. This, that and the other _[talk] 09:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. I wouldn't have thought there was anything to think about. The disambiguation page links only to one other page, which surely in itself would make it pointless, but what is more the one page linked to does not even mention "probationer". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 15:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to diambiguate -- Whpq (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NeoTokyo

Currently non-notable computer game. Still under development and in 'closed testing', and a lack of third party references or sources would appear to violate WP:N, WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. CultureDrone (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn CRYSTAL Chzz ► 15:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references to verify that this is not a hoax. --DAJF (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this works but...

There are plenty of "In Development" games on Wiki. This one is set to be released this month. I gave proper credit and sources, so I have no idea what you're on about. I gave you 3-4 links to Official sites with information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkilbride (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To cite another example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mesa_(video_game)

It's also an unreleased mod for the Source Engine, that is currently in Closed Beta testing. It's at the same status as NeoTokyo, set to be released this year. It also won Moddb's Best Upcoming(NeoTokyo), and has an Official Trailer released, that you can view here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOh3xYPrYF8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkilbride (talk • contribs) 17:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no, I'm afraid. Notability is established through multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. The "Official sources" given are not from reliable sources or are otherwise from primary sources, neither of which is enough to establish said notability. Articles about games "in development" are OK, provided there has been significant coverage, i.e. previews from reliable sources. Otherwise, it is nothing else but looking into a crystal ball, in which such content is generally not allowed here. We also do not judge whether an article should be kept (or deleted) based on the merits of other articles.
As a viable alternative, you could have the article userfied into your userspace so that you can keep working on it, and when enough coverage via reliable secondary sources pop up, it can be moved back into the mainspace. MuZemike 19:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Source engine mods. Yet another Source engine mod in development. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it your own webhost, judging on how the article is written. However, I would not oppose to userfication as I noted above or restoring the redirect once coverage via reliable sources come up. MuZemike 19:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moddb is VERY NOTABLE! IT HAS IT's OWN WIKI PAGE! NeoTokyo is highly rated on both it, and Youtube! It's the SAME THING AS BLACK MESA, BLACK MESA IS IN THE EXACT SAME SITUATION AS NEOTOKYO, YET YOU CHOOSE NOT TO ALLOW NEOTOKYO?

http://www.moddb.com/ It is a very prestigious site, any mod or Indie game hoping to be big is featured there. The trailer is also on Fileplanet http://www.fileplanet.com/196494/190000/fileinfo/Half-Life-2:-Source---Neotokyo-Trailer-720p-(HD)

Podcast 17 also makes notes of it several times. ALL OF THESE WERE POSTED IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkilbride (talk • contribs) 21:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's SOUNDTRACK!

http://cdbaby.com/cd/edharrison —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkilbride (talk • contribs) 21:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using all caps doesn't give any more weight to your argument. Youtube and fileplanet definitely do not count as reliable sources, and just because moddb is notable doesn't automatically give it the credentials of being a reliable source, nor is notability inherited. In fact, moddb has been explicitely invalidated as a reliable source (see Checklist of Reliable Sources for Video Games). I suggest you review the reliable source guidelines before continuing the argument. MLauba (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect WP:CRYSTAL and per MuZemike. MLauba (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the disambiguation page Neo Tokyo. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neo Tokyo. Game is not notable due to lack of extensive coverage in reliable sources. The ModDB entry is irrelevant since it's just a self-written summary. Marasmusine (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that the owners of Moddb itself will swear by it's validity and you can listen to their Modcasts and interviews about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.236.159 (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

moddb is currently not considered a reliable third party source for the purpose of including an article. MLauba (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If what has been said is true, then I request all Mods on Wikipedia that haven't been released and are in closed testing to be removed. Otherwise, this is not fair treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.236.159 (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to nominate them for deletion; can't be fairer than that. Sorry, I missed the ModDB features that include this mod, the first time round, [31] for example. The notability guidelines suggest multiple sources. If ModDB is the only site that has covered this mod extensively then perhaps just redirect to List of Source engine mods. Marasmusine (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails everything.--SkyWalker (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources prove notability.--Sloane (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe it's this difficult...I've provided notable sources, references, and information. I've provided more than most Wiki pages require, and yet this Article will be deleted? It saddens me when I see various articles of poor description on here and they get to stay, but a well written one such as NeoTokyo's is to be deleted, despite the previously mentioned facts. It is due to be released this month; if you can at least leave the article until the end of this month, I'm sure you will see how notable it will be. Moddb, Half-Life 2.net, and Fileplanet, are in my opinion, very notable Sources. This is not my opinion alone, as many users would swear by them. This is one of the oldest Source mods in development, and widely recognized by the community. > http://www.halflife2.net/wiki/index.php/Neotokyo > http://halflife2.filefront.com/news/Mod_HQ_Has_InterViewed_Neotokyo_A_HalfLife_2_Mod;24201 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkilbride (talk • contribs) 05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty you're having is that you appear not having come to terms with the key policies which state that an article content needs to be verifiable through sufficient reliable third-party sources. A source (like moddb or fileplanet) may be notable (in other terms have been covered by other third-party sources) without being considered as reliable. The bar for inclusion is that there must be sufficient independent coverage from said reliable third-party sources. Moddb (much less half-life2.net and fileplanet) do not pass the hurdle to qualify as reliable third-party sources. As a consequence, and until such independent coverage exists, this article can't pass the bar for inclusion. As for the presence of other low quality articles, these are most definitely not a reason to decide an AfD. MLauba (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An example: VG Chartz is notable (even survived an AFD), but its information is not reliable. MuZemike 17:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aduri

AfDs for this article:

Article on an independent film. Brought here for further discussion after a deletion review of the previous discussion. In particular it has been argued that there is ~~hardly~~ not sufficient independent coverage and that a DVD availability at amazon does not ~~really~~ amount to worldwide distribution as this might be intended by WP:NF to refer to the theatrical release. If those concerns cannot be addressed, delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tikiwont (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep barely meets WP:NF, I think; not spam, so I lean towards keep Chzz ► 15:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep meets WP:NF. Not spam. The key words in the nomination again are hardly and not really. These are weasel words pointed out by Wikipedia itself. Amazon distribution is also worldwide. Movie is independently reviewed by DesiChutney and listed on imdb.com and various other independent sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.32.56 (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, i adjusted the wording somewhat. This nomination actually only summarizes the concerns of the DRV. With respect to distribution of the film, I understand WP:NF to refer to the possibility that people can go to a cinema and view the theatrical release and not just that a copy of the DVD can be bought in an on line shop which is no sign of distinction.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not notable, not a single reliable source, and started by a blocked promotional username, which then apparently double !voted in the WP:DRV.

Self-distribution via Amazon considered world-wide distribution is a novel idea, and against the spirit of WP:NF's intent with this clause. The idea is that a notable movie would be procured enough that world-wide distribution actually that actually happens, not the possibility of world-wide distrubition, which is what Amazon offers. That said, a search for "Aduri" in world-wide Amazon.com websites revealed that it was not available in Amazon.at[32], Amazon.ca[33], Amazon.ch[34], Amazon.fr[35], Amazon.de[36], Amazon.jp[37] or Amazon.co.uk[38].
The only Amazon which has it is Amazon.com[39]. Being web-available != world-wide distribution. I hope that people would understand that this movie is in fact not distributed world-wide, as Amazon.com doesn't distribute world-wide. In fact, I doubt the DVD has paid the licensing fee required for multi-region distribution.
This article was created by a now-blocked promotional account User_talk:Adurimovie with the intention of promoting the movie (c'mon!, the name of the user is "Adurimovie", if that is not spam, I do not know what spam is).
Anything put on film and sold commercially is in IMDB, so this is hardly evidence of notability, it is evidence of not being a hoax. No one disputes the existence of this film, just it being notable enough for an encyclopedia article. IMDB is as reliable as Wikipedia itself, that is to say, not reliable.
DesiChutney is hardly a reliable source for notability, being the equivalent of a blog, generally not considered reliable sources in Wikipedia.

These AfDs and the article itself have atracted a surprisingly high number of similary argumentative anon-IPs. This should also be taken into consideration. I am not generally a deletionist, but in this case I have yet to hear a keep argument that doesn't amount either to a personal attack (how dare you attack independent cinema!!!) or WP:ILIKEIT. If this meets WP:NF tell us why, following our rules for inclusion. --Cerejota (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sourcing provided in the article does not establish notability. None are from reliable sources. My own search was unable to find any reliable sources either. Claiming sales on Amazon represents worldwide distribution is tantamount to saying that this criterion for establishing notability is pointless as Amazon will sell anything that it can obtain and ship, including self-published books. So essentially, everything has worldwide distribution. -- Whpq (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as just barely, barely meeting WP:NF. I myself had a hand at removing author's COI, POV and ADVERT to bring it into line with policy and guideline. Earlier author matters not one whit once it belongs to Wiki.... specially if COI, POV, and ADVERT are removed by independent editors with no connection to the project. IMDB might act only to WP:Verfy cast crew, but these informations have been WP:Verified by othe independent sources Pub Films,MSN, Moviefone, Cinema Montreal, All Movie Guide, Movie Clock, so besmirching one WP:Verification pales when looking at all the others. Thank you for granting that the film exists. Further, the DesiChurney review is a credible source independent of the film. Stating "equivalent to a blog" (a statement itself not sourced so may only be opinion), is not the same as actually "being a blog". Kinda like saying a Ford Pinto is "equvalent to a indie racecar". "Equivalence" is not the same as "being". And there are still the unaddressed matters of Passion for Cinema and Maryland Films. Think they would overlooked if they were not mentioned at the AfD? Its weak, but it meets (barely) the guidelines for inclusion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for totally failing WP:MOVIE. Not a single proper review or other article indicating to its notability is included in the article.--Sloane (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Largely for the reasons listed by Whpq. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crownpeak

Not notable, spammy, was CSD'd a few days ago but restored and recreated with less spam, however still many claims made without suitable references, is never going to develop into a useful article which furthers the knowledge in wikipedia, will only serve to advertise the company. I expect it'll be a keep because of some obscure news which, if anyone can be bothered to spend their time on, will turn out to support some but not all of the claims on the page. I appeal to WP:COMMONSENSE, but with a great deal of hope.-- Chzz ► 09:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I added the ad tag, but a few days later there has been no improvement. Still no evidence of notability. --Dmol (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much focus on company awards and leaders. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crowpeak is a company which provides hosted cms solutions, they function along the same lines of Joomla which is opensource and Clickability which is in the same league. My first posting for the same was deleted as it was considered too much of an ad, so I rewrote it. I have currently removed the list of awards for which I do not have a reference from a notable site. I can build it along the lines of Joomla, where the focus is on community. Would that help. Any other suggestions. Belmond (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Belmond[reply]
Keep I can see no reason why this can't be improved rather than deleted. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with User:Jenuk1985 that it would be possible to replace the existing content with a NPOV, well-sourced article with this title.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be possible, but will it happen? If removed, what info is lost? Chzz ► 15:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CORP recommends significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The current article gives no hint that is achievable. The reference for the customer list appears to be the company web page, and the Gartner "positive" award includes the appraisal "CrownPeak struggles to win enterprise business from traditional competitors". Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - rather than appealing to common sense, appealing to the notability guidelines makes more sense. I would discount the Gartner report. I've had access to Gartner, and Gartner analysts, and even work with a consultant who has written Gartner analysis. For the purposes of notability, it is key to understand that Gartner will research and publish information on any company if a client makes a query about it. As such, there is no editorial oversight into the selection of companies by Gartner in these circumstances. I would however trust them for facts about company that could establish notability such as a company being the market leader by sales volume for example. Setting Gartner aside, there is this, and this. The Age, a major Australian daily sees fit to mention them, but more importantly point to more in-depth coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your links confirm only that Crownpeak supply certain software, and that the software news media has reviewed it (in the same way they spend half an hour looking over every commercial software package). None of the links say the company or its product is in any way unusual. The Age article mentions Crownpeak and some other products, only to dismiss them and recommend another. The notability link confirms my above comment that notable means "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". I think the most appropriate policy/guideline is WP:CORP and it does not recommend adding every company that has ever released a software package. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - A company and it's flagship product's notability are inextricably related so articles about both are relevant of the purposes of discussion. Specialised software is not going to attract a lot of mainstream press. IT magazines are the appropriate ares for finding sources, and these sources are independent of the company. -- Whpq (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I won't be very unhappy if people want to keep this article, but the logical conclusion from your reply is that any company releasing software sold for more than, say, $100 is "notable" (because there will be "reviews" of all such software – that's how the IT magazines make articles and sell ad space). I haven't seen a source (let alone a secondary source suggested by WP:CORP) saying there is anything unusual about this company or its software (it's not notable). Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Firstly, there have been plenty of software articles that have been deleted due to lack of coverage in reliable sources, so your fear that every piece of software released will be given an article is unfounded. Secondly, our general notability guidelines uses coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. IT magazines do not review every piece of software available. There is an editorial process in determination of topics and the creation of their articles. Other notability guidelines such as WP:CORP are supplemental to the primary notability criteria and do not replace them. -- Whpq (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the page gives a snapshot of the company from several third party resources. But yes it does have room for more improvement in the content.

Sally (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)sally — Sally12d (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC)..[reply]

- Comment re. Sally12d I notice that the comment above is your second ever contribution to wikipedia. Whilst I am pleased you chose to add to this debate, might I politely enquire if you have any form of vested interest in the company? -- Chzz ► 15:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hm. Do you think this is a WP:SPA? Or shall we WP:AGF for now? No offense to sally, its great if she is interested in participating in the AFD section but with a total of two edits, one wouldn't expect an edit to AFD to be one of the two. FingersOnRoids 01:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - added spa tag just in case. Just a thing for the closing admin to consider. FingersOnRoids 01:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did anyone actually read the references? None of them are sufficient to establish notability. The first is a directory listing; the second is a promotional notice at salesforce.com; the third a press release; and the fourth a Gartner rating. None of those amount to the significant coverage in reliable sources required to establish notability. ukexpat (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what of the ones I posted earlier in the discussion? -- Whpq (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. Discussions wrt rewriting or merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European microstates

There are several problems with the article, but the most serious is that it is not sourced in any way and the selection of six countries that are supposed to compose the "European microstates" is made by an individual Wikipedia editor. Two sources are used, but neither of them define these six states as "The European microstates".

The Economist writes about individuals who have declared small areas to be their own countries, such as Sealand. That is a very different topic from the content of this article.
GlobaLex lists eleven states, including Iceland, Montenegro and Cyprus.

If countries were to be selected based on the two articles used as sources, this article would feature very different states than the ones in it. The main problem, thus, is the complete lack of any sources to support that these six states are the "European microstates". The article doesn't try to define the context. Is it size or population that matters? If it's size, then an argument could surely be made for including Luxemburg. If size matters, then Iceland is much smaller than Malta, yet only the latter is included. And neither Luxemburg nor Montenegro is that much bigger than Malta. I'm not trying to argue for the inclusion of Iceland, Luxemburg or Montenegro, merely pointing that there are definition issues that the article avoids. The relevant content found in this article is already found in articles such as Microstates, European states and of course the individual articles for each country. Given the complete lack of any sources identifying some states as "European microstates", I suggest that this article be deleted. It doesn't add anything to Wikipedia that isn't already there.JdeJ (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - The ultimate question is where this microstates criteria comes from, and if that designation is widespread enough to make it notable. I can't really figure out from the article where that comes from, and assuming it is invented by the creator, it's OR and a delete. If evidence surfaces that there's some established basis for it, I could be persuaded. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think there is enough widespread use of the microstates designation, including those six states, and also a widespread distinction between micronations and microstates. Which countries this includes might be open to some disagreement, but the general concept is notable. See Thomas M. Eccardt, Secrets of the Seven Smallest States of Europe, ISBN 0781810329 (specifically uses the term in reference to 7 microstates). There are others too. Shadowjams (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article title is correct - there are entities such as microstates, small countries or city-states, but maybe the items included in the article are not necessarily those the title refers to. I actually expected to see Sealand in this article as well. In my opinion, this article is something closest to a list of countries, with some extended descriptions, but a bit poorly sourced maybe, and with the elements not chosen that well. Deletion is not the way to go here, rather a rewrite. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Articles are not their titles. Because one could envision an appropriate article under this title is not a valid reason to keep. In fact, deletion would encourage others to start the appropriate article, rather than be dissuaded by the non-notable one. Perhaps the title is an appropriate title of a plausible article, but we're not discussing that article up until the point you or someone else writes it. Note that I'm making a different point than if this were merely the issue of necessary improvements (although even the notion that inadequate articles should be kept because they could be improved is not official wikipedia policy, and is the topic of debate). Shadowjams (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I understand your reasoning. I understand that article titles !== articles themselves, but a title should appropriately describe the content and offer a very short summary of what to expect, and this seems not to be the case here according to some. If you feel that deletion would encourage other contributors to rewrite the article, to which after some thought I am inclined to agree, I am not going to stand in your way - but just note that I never used the word keep in my comment, I just said rewrite. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's fair, and I'm sorry for assuming too much. Like I said, if this term is being used correctly here the article should stay. I just can't find any evidence of that on my preliminary looks. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ouro, the article you are thinking of exists already, and you'll find it at Micronation. It is an article dealing with entities such as Sealand and similar micronations. The title of the article we're currently discussing could not be applied to micronations as these are not independent and recognised, thus they are not states. As you say, titles should describe the content of an article and the content suggested by this title "European microstates" is not something that can be sourced.JdeJ (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jdej, thank you for clearing this up for me. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 12:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is already an article for micronations so this can be a list for the ones which are located in Europe, lists are allowed in Wikipedia-- CD 17:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I must admit that I don't see the logic in that. It would require a change in the title (Euroean microstates -> European micronations) and I fail to see the point of a list consisting of only six entries. There aren't that many micronations or microstates to begin with. And even if these problems were to be resolved, the fundamental problem of a lack of any source for which countries to include remains.JdeJ (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources exist. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Before is not a notability criteria nor is it any of the other article inclusion criteria. It's not relevant to an afd discussion, other than to suggest nominators attempt to rehabilitate articles, or at least point out their potential before. This nominator provided a detailed explanation, and obviously did some research before nominating. The findings you've linked to are relevant, and should be considered, but it's not appropriate to chastise this nom. This is a perfectly appropriate nomination. Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that the nominator has done any research beyond reading the article. He is perhaps unfamiliar with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but WP:IMPERFECT (despite being in contention as to whether or not it's an official policy) is an editing policy, not a notability policy, which is the touchstone of any afd discussion. Also, if in fact article content policy is relevant to an afd, then WP:PROVEIT, which is unquestionably policy, places the burden on those attempting to introduce information, not those removing it. It would be inappropriate to place that burden on an afd nominator, forcing them to prove a negative on a topic they know little about. Shadowjams (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with microstate. Definitely don't delete, this is useful information. Macarion (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge is a good compromise. It sidesteps direct issues as to which countries are technically microstates too. Shadowjams (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, a merge could be an option. While it has been shown that some sources exist, not one of these sources identify these six countries as "The European Microstates". So while it is obvious that there are Microstates and that some of them are situated in Europe, it doesn't appear to be possible to select six states in particular and claim that these six, and no other, states make up the The European Microstates.JdeJ (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Nobre

Obviously fails WP:ACADEMIC. Why was CSD denied, in what way does this 'assert notability'? Chzz ► 08:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is asserted by Editorial Board membership and several awards, so this is indeed not a speedy. However, the awards are minor and an editorial board membership does not suffice to meet the notability criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Unless other sources crop up, fails WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Citation impact seems to be low. No book entries on WorldCat. Some independent news coverage, but not enough for WP:BIO. I do not think that the Portuguese Society of Clinical Sexology is at a level of prestige that would justify inclusion under WP:PROF criterion #3 (as elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association). According to his university, he is currently a “Professor Auxiliar”, which is akin to a senior assistant/new associate in the American system.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I also point out he is only a Section Editor of the journal (Cognitive and Behavioral Practice), whose editor in chief is actually Stefan G. Hofmann [40] [41]. We do notgenerally consider other than ed. in chief as necessarily implying notability. DGG (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G7 deletion because author blanked the page. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stacie Hays

This is a recreation of a deleted page, back from May. It was sent through speedy, and approved, due to not meeting notability. It seems that this is still the case. The sources given do not seem to prove that this person is notable. This article has also existed under the name Stacie Hayez, which was also deleted through the AfD process. That archived discussion can be found here... Pax85 (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted per CSD criterion G7, Fireflysurfer (author) blanked the page. Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commandments of the Church

Text taken from [Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)]; doesn't make much sense as an article, as it stands? Chzz ► 08:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nomination does not address the suitability of the topic for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is the point decided at AfD. "Commandments of the Church" is certainly a notable topic in relation to Catholicism, namely the requirements the Catholic Church makes and has made historically and explicitly of its believers. AfD shouldn't be used as a cleanup process, you know. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response I couldn't find anything to support the idea that 'Commandments of the church' was a topic, ie a known phrase, a known set of rules, etc etc. I believe it's just a title from this old encyclopaedia, or a section heading from it. The commandments of the catholic church will be covered by the articles on that church. -- Chzz ► 09:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how hard did you try? A Google search on the exact phrase "Commandments of the church" gets me 37,000 hits, the first couple of pages of hits being enough, really. Twinkle users aren't absolved from knowing deletion policy, nor from trying this sort of basic check before dragging some article to AfD. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A notable subject, but a poorly presented article. It says that today there are six or five, depending on which catachism is used. This suggests that the Catholic Encyclopaedia has a cross-reference (perhaps only implicitly) to catachisms. The article needs more headings and references and to be better structured, but that suggests improvement not deletion. At worst merge to something, not delete. I am a Protestant, and thus cannot satsifacotrily assist. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is clearly notable as a significant aspect of Catholicism, but the article needs a significant rewrite. It does not deserve to be deleted. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect The nominator suggested redirection (he did not argue for deletion) and S. Marshall redirected the article. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sveinn Birkir Björnsson

Suggest redirect to The Reykjavík Grapevine - as was tried before,but then this 1-line article was re-created. Not notable. Chzz ► 07:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1: the nominator doesn't think the article should be deleted. I agree with the nominator that this should be a redirect, so I'll redirect it myself per WP:BRD; there's no need to go through a full AfD for a redirect that hasn't even been raised on the article's talk page.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Rogers

CSD was denied because of a billboard award, but that was awarded to a radio show, not the person. I can't find anything much by googling; if you can assert some notability, fine, but I can't see any. Chzz ► 07:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - programs may be notable but he doesn't appear to be, lacks 3rd party sources. I'm not finding any record of a best R&B syndicated radio program Billboard award being presented to this radio personality. I'm also not finding any record of Billboard having a best R&B syndicated radio program award category.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaahin Mohajeri

Non notable musician, written mostly by two users, User:Shaahin_mohajeri, and User:Acousticsoftombak (whose username is also the title of one of Mohajeri's webpages. Only English reference is an interview of some guy who calls Mohajeri 'very talented'. Gets <300 Google hits. Evan ¤ Seeds 07:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for conflict of interest. Alexius08 (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this article is top heavy on self-promotion, see[42]. Insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While a COI isn't a reason for deletion, a huge lack of reliable, third-party, sources is. Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has anyone checked out the Persian language references and links in the article? Or looked for any other Persian sources? If not then we can't claim that this lacks sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ohio Cup. Per merge completed MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ohio (MLB)

It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: Notability of the "Battle of Ohio" or the series unexplained, could simply be merged into team or season article (was prodded at 05:55, 6 March 2009 by User:Mosmof, changed to AfD by Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Some sort of page is needed for this name, for people who read about a "Battle of Ohio" and wonder what it was and think that the name means a military or riotsquad battle. There are people who know little or nothing about USA baseball. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable rivalry.. Spanneraol (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Ohio Cup is a possibility. - Eureka Lott 02:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ohio Cup. This article basically covers the ground that the two existing Ohio Cup articles should. Rlendog (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ohio Cup articles cover 1989-1996 and 2008-present, but omit the intervening years described in the nominated article. - Eureka Lott 13:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that article could be expanded to cover the intervening years. Rlendog (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ohio Cup. §hep ^Talk 00:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - For the "merge" recommendations - what exactly would be merged into the Ohio Cup article, other than that, yes, the two teams did in fact play each other? The reason I tagged this with PROD was because there really wasn't any particularly notable information beyond what was already covered with Ohio Cup. --Mosmof (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right now there are two Ohio Cup articles, one covering the period through 1996 and the other starting in 2008. This article covers mostly the years in between. The three could be combined into a single Ohio Cup article (even though technically the 1997-2007 wasn't technically an "Ohio Cup", it would make sense to cover the competition between the two teams duing the intervening years within that article, explaining that the cup was suspended in those years).Rlendog (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the Battle of Ohio (MLB) annual series of baseball matches is going to continue alongside the revived Ohio Cup (2008-Present) series, there is less point in merging. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged Ohio Cup (1989-1996) and Ohio Cup (2008-Present) to Ohio Cup, which was a disambig before. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have also merged Battle of Ohio (MLB) to Ohio Cup, but left page Battle of Ohio (MLB) as it was. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attack! Attack!

Notability not established, may be regionally famous only. tedder (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep performed at reading festival link to bbc Chzz ► 15:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of recognition past their own region; see [43], [44], and [45], for instance. Chubbles (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and here's some more, [46], [47]. To the Nom, "may be regionally famous only", did you actually do a search for any sources at all before you nominated the article???? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk"

Yes, I did, and what I found didn't show much except the Guitar Hero session. tedder (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least marginally notable. --Stormbay (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Dream of Jeannie (2009)

I can find no verification that a film or television program is even near a production confirmation. So far, all I see is that someone has been hired to write a script for it. This needs to be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: quite possibly a hoax. Nothing on imdb or news archives. JamesBurns (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, then re-create later: According to IMDB, there actually is going to be a film next year. Although all they have is the company making it and it being filmed in Vancouver. So, we delete now and re-create when more information is known. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and DitzyNizzy. Toddst1 (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL Chzz ► 14:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blink this one away Ben Stiller as a second banana in a TV series? Jeannie, make this crap disappear! Mandsford (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that from Bewitched? Oh wait, that's the nose. MuZemike 03:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: virtually the definition of a crystal ball approach to pre-empting releases. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not verifiable. Enigma^msg 20:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely hoax. Search for film name in conjunction with alleged cast and production company does not even find a rumour. Buh Bye. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think this enough to warrant an article yet, but IMDB does have a listing for this, albeit with a 2010 release date, and lists writers and a production company.[48] Rlendog (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Cobb

Article about a nonnotable record producer. There's a bit of puffery added here to try to obscure the fact that he hasn't done anything special towards the business of record producing, nor has he been commented on in detail by independant, reliable, sources. Checking on google, and google news yields no sources written about Cobb, which are required per WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: some self-promotion appears to be going on [49]. Trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 01:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Erotic sexual denial. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruined orgasm

Nonnotable neologism with no reliable sources needed to verify its acceptance of a term within any well-documented sexual practise. A google search brings up no reliable sources. Zero hits on google news and zero hits on google scholar. All that stands on the article as it is constitutes original research. Themfromspace (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be used in the broad community, so doesn't fail neologism; sources aren't great, but they are out there. Chzz ► 15:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Do you have any reliable sources to verify that assertion? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as per WP:NEO "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia". This means that being used in the "broad community" does not mean the term doesn't fail neologism. Sources need to be provided to show that this term is notable per the WP:NEO policy, not just that it is used. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Erotic sexual denial. This is not OR; I've added some links to show usage is widespread. But agree with the comments above--term does not warrant its own article, and will fit well as a section in Erotic sexual denial. Owen× ☎ 19:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upon closer inspection, the article was already merged once before with Erotic sexual denial, but that action was reverted, perhaps without good justification. Owen× ☎ 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore merge with Erotic sexual denial. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - not sufficiently separate term or practice to need its own article distinct from other "denial" terminology and practices. Per usual norms we don't need an article on every term. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WPSNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Hulme (author)

Unnotable person. Fails WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. Only a few minor creative efforts: one minor book series, unnotable anthology, unnotable radio series, and an unnotable documentary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources have been added. Artw (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The New York Times and HBO find him notable enough to have covered him. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above Chzz ► 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems notable enough. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But it is a shame that the article is not expanded. I do not know on what basis the nominator considers the book series minor, since it has reviews in multiple major news sources. DGG (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters based on developers in Ultima series

The article is completely original research that I have been unable to verify even 1 statement with a reliable source. じんない 04:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for many reasons. First, apart from the well-known Garriott = Lord British, it is entirely original research and fan speculation. Secondly, lots of game companies will base characters on people they know just for shits and giggles, so who cares? Thirdly, this is an indiscriminate list not suitable for an encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lord Blackthorne is also pretty well known since UO, but aside from that, fully second all points. MLauba (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete crufty OR Chzz ► 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Chzz. I do suspect the sources for a few of these are out there, but you'd really have to dig, and then that would essentially be trivial content, which is usually avoided in articles. --Izno (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki, no RS, reeks of OR, and per Reyk. MLauba (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all cruft. The war on cruft never ends.--Sloane (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable/OR. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crunchyroll Online Catalog

This was a CSD candidate under G11, but it does not seem to be blatant spam. However, this is a very good example of a page that should not be on Wikipedia. Per WP:NOTREPOSITORY, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:NOTCATALOG, this page is simply a useless list and is highly unencyclopedic. As a list of works published, this almost qualifies as a "sales list" sans prices and has no place in Wikipedia. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{( t • c )} 03:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the person who CSDed the article. It is also pretty much a copy of Crunchyroll. The site gained some notability, but not three articles worth, despite the claims of the site's PR person who created all three. No redemptive value as a redirect. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic, not worth a redirect to Crunchyroll, WikiPedia is not a sales catalogue. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Crunchyroll wants a catalog of all series streamed from their website, then they should host that list on their website, not on Wikipedia. (WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTREPOSITORY) I also don't see this as a viable search term either and it relies too much on WP:ONESOURCE (which shouldn't be a redlink). --Farix (Talk) 12:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 12:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Crunchyroll. Every partner listed under Crunchyroll Partners has a either a list page or a category page of their titles. Indeed, pretty much every anime licensor and anime studio page, not to mention manga publishers, has a list of their titles. I don't see where having a list of Crunchyroll titles is any different, or unreasonable (see also WP:BUILD. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not their online catalog. The list was in the CR article too (he put it there, then made a separate article) and was removed as it was not appropriate. Nor is this website a licensor, studio, nor publisher. We don't list every video on YouTube, Joost, etc, so there is no reason to list everything here either. If people are interested in the site's detailed contents, they can go to it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. Recommend Salt as well, since there seems to be a publicist involved. Edward321 (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need a catalog and there is already a Crunchyroll article. --KrebMarkt 18:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crunchyroll Partners

This was a CSD candidate under G11, but it does not seem to be blatant spam. However, this is a very good example of a page that should not be on Wikipedia. Per WP:NOTREPOSITORY, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:DIRECTORY, this page is simply a useless list and is highly unencyclopedic. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{( t • c )} 03:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the person who CSDed the article. It is also pretty much a copy of Crunchyroll. The site gained some notability, but not three articles worth, despite the claims of the site's PR person who created all three. No redemptive value as a redirect. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete why does this need a separate article? Seems like WP:PROMOTION 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Crunchyroll wants a list all of their partnerships, then they should host that list on their website, not on Wikipedia. (WP:DIRECTORY, WP:NOTREPOSITORY) The only time a partnership should be mentioned is briefly the main article if the partnership is covered by reliable third-party sources. I also don't see this as a viable search term either and it relies too much on WP:ONESOURCE (which shouldn't be a redlink). --Farix (Talk) 12:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 12:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Crunchyroll. Every partner listed under Crunchyroll Partners has a either a list page or a category page of their titles. Indeed, pretty much every anime licensor and anime studio page, not to mention manga publishers, has a list of their titles. I don't see where having a list of Crunchyroll's partners is any different, or unreasonable (see also WP:BUILD. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As in the other one, Wikipedia is not their online catalog, nor is this their place to host a brag list. The actual list was in the CR article too (he put it there, then made a separate article) and was removed as it was not appropriate contents for such an article. Nor is this website a licensor, studio, nor publisher (and, of those, the lists are being removed as the articles are improved). We don't list every video on YouTube, Joost, etc, so there is no reason to list everything here either. If people are interested in the site's detailed associations, they can go to it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. Recommend Salt as well, since there seems to be a publicist involved. Edward321 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 Chzz ► 15:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That redundant information with CrunchyRoll article and rather kind of propaganda :( People should better increase the main article quality rather than spaming useless child-articles. --KrebMarkt 18:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the lead is indeed identical to Crunchyroll, and the list of partners does not belong here. It looks like someone is trying to use Wikipedia as their own web host. I'm indifferent about G11; one could argue that someone from the company is writing the article see this ANI post and is using the pages as PR. However, inclement weather indicates that it's doomed, anyway, so it's moot. MuZemike 03:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imprisoned by fossil fuels

This article reads like a book report and not an encyclopedic entry. It is a sincere effort, but I think it runs into WP:OR issues. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. B+ for effort, but it reads like a school essay and not an encyclopedia article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unencyclopedic in its current state. The title indicates a strong bias and the article focuses on the US. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research, but it reads like it. Delete. Esteffect (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep flag it up - npov, synth parts, etc - but genuine info, sourced...why delete? Chzz ► 16:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of energy topics, starting with Energy (society) has plenty of links to fairly encyclopedic articles on the subject. What's the poing of diluting them with a partisan essay? There's nothing special to justify Imrisonment instead of improving, say, Energy crisis? Delete. NVO (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of high-school essays. -Atmoz (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like essay. If there is anything worth to keep (which I doubt), merge these parts into the Energy policy of the United States. Beagel (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faith in Place

Appears to fail WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In my opinion, this article is a borderline case for a G12 (copyvio) speedy deletion, since most of the text is assembled from sentences lifted—in some cases, rewritten a bit—from pages of the organization's Web site. I've linked some those pages on the article's talk page, but I'd like some other opinions about whether it qualifies for a speedy. Deor (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I abstain from the speedy discussion, but notability is not established.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThe version re-written on the 7th and 8th is suitable for WP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search confirms notability in the Chicago-area media: [50]. The article needs to be rewritten, but it doesn't require deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (1) I have looked at a few dozen of the hits from the Google News search referred to above. They do not seem to me to establish notability. I am not willing to spend the time it would take to give a detailed analysis of what is there and why it doesn't establish notability, but much of it looks likely to be based on press releases from Faith in Place, or published by organisations which would wish to publicise Faith in Place, etc. (2) It seems to me very parochial. Even if it is locally well known, does that give it notability in Wikipedia's sense? (3) If it is to remain it will need rewriting pretty well from scratch. Apart from the question of possible copyright violation, it has several other faults which make it unsuitable for Wikipedia. For example, it is riddled with point of view statements (e.g. "gives religious people the tools they need to become good stewards of the earth", etc). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JamesBWatson Chzz ► 15:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spam Chzz ► 16:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indented because of double-voting OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Promospam for an organization that fails WP:ORG. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to fail WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now weak keep the improved version. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believer suitable notability has really been established. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC) (Changes to article force reassessment.) - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Poorly written but concerns a notable organization. I found a coupel of references and will try to add. Yet another example of church folks who are rather stuck in their own universe. I'll see if I can sort this out a bit. -- Banjeboi 20:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went through all the sources provided and they're either not very reliable or they make only a trivial mention of the organisation.--Sloane (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sloane, I'm sorry but that's simply not true. I'm aware you don't care for the rescue tag and you certainly seem to be casting delete votes on every article tagged for rescue. That just doesn't seem like it's the best thing for either you or Wikipedia. I'll also point out that I have the article under construction but as of your comment there was at least four interviews with the principals of the group about their group's work. In any case I'm going to keep working and perhaps those who are a bit more objective will weigh in. -- Banjeboi 00:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for assuming good faith! --Sloane (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd rather be upfront and simply point out the issue and we can agree to disagree and go our separate ways. What you do about it is completely in your hands. -- Banjeboi 00:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for breaking up with me gently, I guess. Although I did not know we were married.--Sloane (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article rewritten. I wasn't able to access many of the articles on Google news because they require subscriptions. It may be worth hunting down someone who does to see them. -- Banjeboi 01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC) -- Banjeboi 01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WikiProject Chicago, WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Illinois have been notified of this discussion. -- Banjeboi 01:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing now seems to meet WP:N in the article. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think at this point there are sufficient citations for notability.' Appropriate use of the rescue template. DGG (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would be nice if "article rescuers" would make an effort to evaluate the relevance of the "sources" they cite instead of uncritically dumping apparently unviewed search results into articles. Note 9 in the current version of the article, for instance, references "'Health, Fitness, and Food. What We Need to Know.' Radio Islam: Daily Muslim Talk Radio Chicago, by Aysha Shalabey, October 29, 2008," linking to this page, which nowhere mentions Faith in Place (and certainly not in the October 29, 2008, entry). And that's not the only one that appears not to support the material it supposedly references. Among the mass of references added to the artice, I'm not seeing anything that isn't (1) clearly traceable to the organization itself or (2) the sorts of passing mentions that I found when I used Google myself. Without multiple relevant, independent, and substantive sources to support notability, this fails WP:ORG. Deor (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, that particular source does mention the "Taqwa Eco-Food" project, founded by Faith in Place. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you listen to the whole hour-long show or find a transcript of it? Otherwise, how can you tell what was said on that day? Hobit (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the ref to the article; Benjiboi did. I think the relevant question is, Did he listen to the show or read a transcript of it? There's nothing on the linked page that supports anything other than the existence of "Shireen Pishdad, Founder of Taqwa Eco Food," while it appears to be cited as a source for much more material in the article than that. If Benjiboi meant to refer to the contents of the actual radio broadcast, and he hadn't first made himself familiar with those contents, that would be dishonest scholarship. Deor (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that he did, or perhaps found an (unreliable) transcript or perhaps something else. Asking him would probably be a better start to this discussion. Hobit (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assuming good faith here. You'll note the link you cite has a "listen" link which you can click, I didn't listen to the entire show but I did listen to a portion. I also only wrote a fews sentences about each of their projects. Any of them could be expanded quite a bit but I only was going for the description overview. -- Banjeboi 11:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to beat the problems with this one reference into the ground; but I did listen to the whole show this morning (one has to go about 22 minutes into it before the interview with Ms. Pishdad begins), and aside from the interviewer's introducing her as "founder of Taqwa Eco Food," the only mention of that organization is right at the end, where Ms. Pishdad says that she is no longer involved with it. Faith in Place is nowhere mentioned. I didn't hear anything that would serve to support the notability of either Taqwa Eco Food or Faith in Place. I'd simply encourage anyone reviewing this article to avoid the "Wow, look at all the references" trap and actually examine those references before accepting their relevance to this discussion. Deor (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the rewrite I still think delete. I agree with Deor: there are references that either come from the organisation itself, do not in fact refer to the statement to which they are attached, or make only incidental passing reference to it. We need secondary sources (as required byWikipedia:Notability) from reliable sources which directly address the question of whether "Faith in Place" is notable, not incidentally mention tangentially related issues. However, even if we take the view that a few of the references do not suffer from these drawbacks, we still have to assess whether those few establish notability, and, frankly they don't. They paint a picture of a rather parochial organisation taken note of only by a limited range of enthusiastic people in a limited area. The rewrite may or may not have solved the copyright problems (I have not investigated) but simply giving strings of citations has not established notability. As for the article's content, does that indicate notability? Well, it tells us that in one city in the world a group of religious people would like to encourage people to take ecology and economy seriously, that it teaches about worm composting and bee-keeping, and has set up local businesses to sell food produced by means that it approves of. There seems to be no agreement on Wikipedia as to what exactly constitutes notability, but if I were to write articles on every local group, organisation, or project in my neighbourhood that I think is as newsworthy as that, and everyone were to do the same for their neighbourhoods, Wikipedia would soon be overwhelmed. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to strike out the boldface "Delete" in the comment above, JBW, since you've already registered a delete !vote elsewhere in this discussion. Deor (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for pointing that out: my mistake.

If your neighborhood was the size of Illinois you may have a point. This is a Chicago-based statewide-plus organization that works on environmental issues from a religious/spiritual perspective interdenominationally, to any religious group from the main world religions. I can't say whether or not they will or won't cater to any religious group. The worm-composting and beekeeping is a minute fraction of what they do and belittles the impact they've had. They have been interviewed many many times albeit mostly to religious media which certainly remain reliable sources. I also found mainstream sources, the two major Chicago dailies, that also wrote about them. Several books also mention them so we are well beyond a small group with a limited range and scope. Characterizing all, or even most of these sources as passing is rather misleading. There were plenty of passing mentions available which I did not feel useable. I suppose I'll have to dig up even more. -- Banjeboi 11:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Article obviously non-notable, debate won't be required. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 03:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diary Of A Gangster

Non-notable album. Zero Google hits for "Diary of a Gangster" "Young Eddie". Article is mainly copied from Music Is My Savior. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (Non-Admin Closure). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Time (novel series)

Unnotable book series. Completely fails WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, no awards, only one RS review found. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It could be improved, I agree. That's why it should be kept. More references can be added, and it can be expanded and wikified. It's a notable series. Mollymoon (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually provide evidence to back up your claim that it is notable, and show how it meets WP:BK and WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The only reliable sources I can find are ones about different books with the same title, so I am inclined to doubt the unfounded assertion that references can be added. No sources = no article. Reyk _YO! 04:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain- I am not entirely sold on the reliability of the new sources. That is, I don't know enough about book review sites to distinguish between ones with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and bloggish ones with no such reputation. Since I don't know enough to make a fair call I won't make any. Reyk _YO! 05:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See below. None of those appear to be RS unless the third sources' ref is messed up, and even then, that leaves one of three that may be reliable. The other certainly don't seem like it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The now improved article. With respects to the nom... the article has now been expanded and sourced. I was able to include reviews of the first 2 books of the trilogy to meet WP:BOOK and the transitory and every-changing bastian of opinion and subjectiveness, WP:N. Reviews of the 3rd will have to wait until it is released. Sorry, its now a keeper. And... wasn't all that difficult. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, second one of those looks like a Wiki site, which would not be RS. The third source appears to be the book itself?? That only leaves one review, and I'm not sure that one meets RS. They apparently write reviews for any author who requests and for pay. So sorry, but no...I wouldn't call that notable at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the Kirkus Reviews article on Wiki? OR did you even go to the Barnes & Noble site where, as service to customers, they offer reviews of Book One by Publishers Weekly, Timothy Capehart of "Voya", Margaret K. McElderry of School Library Journal, and Kirkus. All independent of subject.... all renown reliable sources. (gnore the tabs for customer review... as we do not care about them... only look at the ones offered by the Big Boys). Then visit B&N for Gate of Days and click editorial review there to find Keri Collins Lewis of Childrens Literature, Cara Chancellor of "Kliatt Reviews", and the aforementioned Kirkus Reviews. All reliable, not related with the author or publisher. I do not feel that if they are available for you and any editor to see, that I am now forced to do all the work myself to improve what could have simply been tagged for sources... and then come back here and debate over the article's quite obvious notability. If you simply want the article gone... at least that I can understand. And which one did you think was wikipedia???? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke specifically to the ones YOU added to the article. Book Bag appears to be a self-published wiki site that does NOT meet RS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup.... and rightly so.... but then this made me decide that since I later and quite easily found dozens of other reviews from reliable sources {as I noted above), you must have already done so too since you always practice WP:BEFORE... and since you must have known the reviews existed and still wanted it gone so bad... why should I bother. Like the point you make below to DGG where you now call call less-than-trivial coverage by reliable sources simply "brief reviews" as a dismissive... even though guideline for notability, unless it chanaged yet again since this morning, specifically allows for multiple lesser coverage if larger ones are not available.... this because guideline for notability recognizes that a children's book series is not going to have the same coverage as a popular media-hyped book and so specifically allows for that less-than-substantial coverage?? Think I want to keep bumping into that stone wall? No thanks. No more drama. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the guideline allow for this? That isn't significant coverage and I see nothing in WP:BK giving such an exemption (nor do I remember ever seeing one). If it is notable, it will have received full reviews from such sources, not just brief ones. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot quote only part of guideline and then "ignore" the rest. WP:BOOK is one of the many, many, many, many, many, many, many subsets of parent article WP:N and its WP:GNG which specifically defines significant coverage: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive", which is a pointed indicator that the shorter reviews for a children's book you treat dismissively as insignificant, are indeed properly acceptable as significant since they are more than a trivial listing, even if not a in-depth analysis longer than the book itself. Further, WP:BOOK itself states in its opening paragraph:

"The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself", which these books certainly have, as even the "brief" reviews are not simply a trivial listing.
"...with at least some of these works serving a general audience", which applies since Kirkus Reviews and the others are specifically intended to serve a general audience.
"This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary", and this applies as even you have granted that "some of these works" are longer and more in-depth than others.
Further, and strangely not addressed in your continued references to WP:BOOK is that these also meet the "Threshold Standards" of "an ISBN number (for books published after 1966), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library." Meeting this threshold standard was quite explicitly pointed out by DGG. So, when quoting WP:BOOK in order to exclude something, one must try to be aware of its own subsets and instructions that then allow inclusion.

Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kirkus, from where that review just above comes, is a RS for reviews [51] Scholastic is a major childrens publisher; the series is in over 500 WorldCat libraries, Additional reliable reviews; Hornbook, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly--all in GNews archive, [52]. Google News Archive at the present the easy way to find book reviews for popular books, Enormously easier to find them with it than it was online even 2 years ago, since it filters out all the fan sites. DGG (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...let's see...First result - different book. Second result, different book. Third, actually this book, but a brief review not a full one. Next 3-4 appear to also be RS, but all behind registrations making it impossible to see, at the moment, just what sort of content they have, though at least three are marked as being only brief reviews. Usable, but not indicators of notability considering the publishers are all places that generally review all young adult books. The rest, another unrelated article, then some repeats from the first set. Here is a much more appropriate search[53] that includes the author's name...goes from 132 results to 11, most of which are marked as brief reviews. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix the systemic bias against literature written in foreign languages in WP:BOOK. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an issue of systemic bias. Its published in English as well, which deflates at least part of that issue. If, however, you are aware of reliable reviews in its home country, by all means please point them out. WP:BK does not limit reviews to only those in English. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is systemic bias, unless you yourself have practiced WP:BEFORE and can declare that French sources do not exist. Demanding them without youself bothering to look is anglo-bias as pointed out by Kyaa. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The anglocentrism of the en wikipedia is well documented, thank you very much. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have french language sources I would suggest adding them. Artw (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not even neccesary as the books have exceeded requirements in English. The French would certainly be nice from French Wikipedians, as the point about anglo-centricism is well made... but are not required, as the books pass with flying colors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~Keep - although a stub and in need of further development, there are enough reliable, independent sources there to establish basic notability. With respect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Books, the article is not actually required to meet standards set by a WikiProject, just those of Wikipedia. Criteria 1 of the Wikipedia:Notability (books) appears to have been met by the reviews now listed on the article - which is impressive considering the apparent limited availability of this text in English at the moment. Deleting this just because the article is still a stub in need of further development is not grounds. DiverScout (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quote of the day: "the transitory and every-changing bastian of opinion and subjectiveness" Chzz ► 16:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable enough. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Plenty of indepedant sources. Edward321 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WPSNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drift House: The First Voyage

Unnotable children's novel. Completely fails WP:BK. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it counts as notable. Also, its article is relatively long, unlike most articles that really should be deleted. Mollymoon (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BK and WP:N, then provide actual resources showing how this book meets those guidelines. Length of the article has absolutely nothing to do with whether it should be kept or not. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as above, the mutliple reviews from the usual reliable sources for children's literature are in Google News Archive [54]. The nominator would do well to ay look for sources first before nominating. DGG (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did. You might want to try using quotes in your Google searches...helps weed out the thousands of false hits. A proper search yields only 14 hits, of which only 3 appear to be reviews, and they are again brief ones, not full ones.[55] Still fails WP:BK. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article in New York Times appears to be of a reliable, third-party nature delivered to a wider audience. The SF site also appears to be a satisfactory reference, therefore meeting Criteria 1 of the Notability (Books). A Google quotes search produces many more than 14 hits, many of which appear to be reviews. Category 1 does not stipulate the minimum length of a review, but, even so, several of these appear to be of moderate length. I have added a UK newspaper review which includes a section on this author and text. Although this is a short entry it shows that the text has already drawn attention to itself in a wider context. DiverScout (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough sources Chzz ► 16:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:N has been met. Artw (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Planty of independant sources showing notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep and tag for expansion and improvement. This has been released in several different editions and has received multiple reviews that meet the criteia for inclusion. (C, we can work together tomorrow on making this one shine as we did The Book of Time (novel series). We can make it even better.) Its a definite keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Per DGG et al. -- Banjeboi 20:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Cities: A Drift House Voyage

Unnotable children's novel. Fails WP:BK. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's notable, and that article could be expanded. Mollymoon (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BK and WP:N, then provide actual resources showing how this book meets those guidelines. Length of the article has absolutely nothing to do with whether it should be kept or not. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ditto. do your own searches, it's easy enough. DGG (talk)`

Now, really, you're gonna tell me that THREE google news hits shows this is notable? Two brief reviews and a passing mention in another article.[56] That does not meet WP:BK -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Drift House: The First Voyage - notability of the series doesn't particularly seem to be an issue, but currently there's nothing to this article. Artw (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge to subsection in Drift House: The First Voyage until additional material can be found - it can then be forked out to its own page if this happens. DiverScout (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep allow to expand Chzz ► 16:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Heir Chronicles

Completely unnotable book series. Could not find a single reliable, independant source on this series nor any of its individual books. No reviews, nothing, not even any real press releases. Completely fails WP:BK. Was prodded when it was created, but prod was removed by article creator with no explanation, then some fake awards added to the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Non-notable series even among hard-core fantasy and SF fans. Should have been deleted long ago. (Don't forget to delete the redir(s) when this closes.) --Orange Mike | Talk 03:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Mike this series is a New York Times and USA Today Best seller —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husk3rfan9287 (talk • contribs) 11:51, March 10, 2009

Delete - I redirected the other 2 articles on the series' sequels because they only had one line each. Thought it was notable because of the awards.Extremepro (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reviews are best found under the individual book title, Google News archive, at [57]. "The warrior heir". Over one thousand library holdings. [58]. & restore the others similarly.DGG (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of library holdings is not an indication of notability in any way, shape, nor form. As for the Google results, the same as the others. Almost all nothing but brief, auto reviews done by several publishers which review all children's books published. Few, to any, are in-depth and certainly nothing showing there that actually meets WP:BK. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure holdings is relevant, in both directions. not proof, but an indication. Just like distribution figures for any media. An english language american publisher's childrens book with 50 copies in WorldCat libraries, that will not be notable unless it has just been published by an author so important that all their work is notable. A book with 500 or 1000, almost certainly yes. As for the reviews, you are just plain wrong--every one of these of the ones i specified is highly selective. I would not take the presence of a review in any individual one of them as determinative--but for 2 or 3, yes. In addition, this and the other books have reviews in major newspapers listed there also. But I am a little confused--you nominated on the basis there are no reviews or press releases. I've shown that you are wrong, as there are plenty of both, & I linked to a list of them (there are press releases in there also). do you at least agree that you were wrong in your original search? How did you search, by the way? DGG (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The exact same way I begin source searching for any article. First, I type '"Heir Chronicles" Chima' in the Google search box built into my browser. I quick scan the first page of results, as usually official sites will pop up in there, and sometimes reviews. I also look at general hits, which while not usable, usually is a decent idea if something modern has any notability (in this case, 317 GHits).[59] Then I switched to Google News, hit all dates, and review those.[60] - In this case, none. Any valid reliable source would list both the name and the author's last name, at minimum. I then check Google Books (no hits[61]), and sometimes Google Scholar (one unrelated results[62]. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my searching at all. This is an article on the series, so I looked for overall series notability, not the individual books. It is the proper way to search for something, using quotes around the title, dropping the article (The) and including the author's last name. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on amazon reviews (and checking the writers of those reviews) Chzz ► 16:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

watch out--no matter how notable the author of the review, it must be a published review, not one on a book jacket or the like. Even reputable people help their friends out that way, and say nice things they would never actually publish. Amazon is in my opinion only useful as a guide to where reviews might be found, if you then track them down properly. Otherwise its no better than reviews at the publishers site--also a guide to where real ones might be, but nothing more. DGG (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- comment - Don't make me puke; Amazon "reviews" are notorious in the publishing industry as a place where spamming, self-advertisment and other forms of fraud and gaming take place. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. <80 ghits from this search. Some blogs, sales listings, amazon mirrors, etc. Nothing resembling significant coverage in a reliable source. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first book in this series is quite notable. A good way to judge relevancy is to go to google.com and start typing in the name of the book to see google's search suggestions. Once you type "The Warr", "The Warrior Heir" is the fifth suggestion. Once you type "The Warrior" and then "Space", "The Warrior Heir" is the first suggestion. Once you type the title of the book, this exact article, "The Warrior Heir Wiki", is the second suggestion. One of the reasons people have been searching for this on google is because It was recently named to the Youngstown State University English Festival booklist. Many teachers make kids do reports for all the books on the list to be able to go to this event. Therefore, many kids look for summaries online to help with reports. Although this article is poorly written, it is relevant because people want this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.101.19 (talk • contribs) 21:10, March 7, 2009

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Winslet filmography

Without approaching article talk page to discuss, an editor removed the filmography from the article to a new page. It was prodded and the filmography returned to the main article. The editor reverted the return to the main article once more, someone restored it. Still the editor did not attempt to discuss it. The prod was removed with the rationale of "remove prod tag - the Kate Winslet article is getting too long, so a WP:Summary style spinoff is quite acceptable." In checking the size of the article as recommended at WP:SIZE, the readable content on Kate Winslet is at 33KB, well within the guidelines for remaining about 30 to 50 KB. As it stands, there is no rationale or consensus for breaking out the filmography, therefore, there is no point in this page remaining. At the time that editors of the page determine it is time to break out the filmography, it can be moved, just as this was, by copy and pasting the present filmography. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as duplicate of already existing material, if the consensus is to keep it where it is (which makes sense to me). However, if that is disputed, then this really isn't something for AFD - If anything, it should go to RFC - Because the subject is obviously notable. Esteffect (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin I think it should be known that Wildhartlivie has been inappropriately canvassing for support [63][64][65] this should be considered. Thank you. --neon white talk 04:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was an honest mistake, the three notes I left asking for input here have been reverted. There was no mal-intent in asking them, it was more a matter of alerting people that it had been proposed for deletion. Having said that, it is quite annoying that this should have to even be brought here, as the page was created by removing content from another article with no consensus, or even proposed on the article talk page, and the person who moved the filmography originally would not respond about it, and had done the same thing to Angelina Jolie, with no discussion. I apologize if I did something inappropriate. It doesn't take away from the fact that the page is redundant at this time and should be deleted as a duplication. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thay's ok. I urge you to review the guidelines on WP:CANVASSING. It's ok to inform other editors of a debate and ask for their opinion but it must be done in a neutral manner, you shouldn't ask them to 'support deletion' or any other position in a debate. In terms of the article is there any reason why it can't just be redirected to Kate_Winslet#Filmography? --neon white talk 20:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, assuming all good faith here, I admitted the 3 postings were an error, I know the policy about canvassing, and please bear in mind there was no reason for me to believe the deletion would be controversial. After the person who moved the filmography out of the main article and reverted the return to Winslet's article that was made by User:TreasuryTag, and refused to discuss it, it was simply "Oh geez, what is the point here?" You chastised me on my talk page, you have entered a similar note on this page which really wasn't necessary to do again, I really don't need further lecturing. Please feel free to look through my 24,000+ edits and see if I've ever done that before. As for redirecting, the main question is ... why? It is a direct copy and paste of the filmography that is in Winslet's article and how often is someone who is just looking going to search for "Kate Winslet filmography" instead of "Kate Winslet"? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per User:Esteffect. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per my original PROD tag. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Chzz ► 16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question- While I have no opinion either way on the article, my question to those advocating speedy deletion: under what criteria would this fall? I don't see any offhand, but perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect they mean 'delete speedily' ... --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a part of her article and is an unnecessary fork. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedily: an unnecessary fork from her main article which adds no extra content. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 20:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expo 2011

This appears to be a complete hoax. There is nothing on Google nor Google News nor CBC News that shows Vancouver is getting an Expo in 2011. єmarsee • Speak up! 02:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Totally made up, along with the image, as far as I can tell. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vancouver already had Expo '86, and they have that certain winter sports festival next year going on, so they don't need another thing to bring in the tourists so soon. No sources for this. Nate • (chatter) 05:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List of world expositions doesn't list any happening in 2011, so it looks like it isa made up event. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done)

Delete as above Chzz ► 16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Black lotus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Lotus

Non-notable group. Very few Gnews hits and most apply to other topics. Tagged as needing references since 2007-12. The only external links are the group's (self-published) site and a bboard. Frank | talk 01:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Black lotus disambiguation and remove the link there to this article. This is a likely search term. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:RS, no notability Chzz ► 16:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about a redirect? You don't need sources for one of those. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Black lotus, the band fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Ray Joseph Cormier

AfDs for this article:

Article fails to establish sufficient notability to meet notability guidelines. Activities appear to be no more significant than incidents of petty theft, or occasional graffiti. Canadian House of Commons events may be slightly notable - enough to be mentioned in THAT article, but not significant enough for the perpetrator to be mentioned in their own right (compare Jason Hatch, a member of Fathers 4 Justice who scaled the UK house of commons dressed as Batman, or Eddie Gorecki and Jolly Stanesby who did the same on the Royal Courts of Justice) Clinkophonist (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs serious clean up, but meets the requirements set forth in WP:N. He's been the subject of several non-trivial sources. Maybe all those newspapers should have not written about him, but they did, and in doing so they made him notable. Not wanting those sources to exist does not make them disappear. There is WAY more than enough reference here to support notability. Indeed, this is a borderline WP:SNOW situation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are minor newspapers. Its like someone who wins a gooseberry jam contest in Winchester, getting reported in the local press, then going into a similar contest contest in Newcastle, and winning that too, so getting a mention in the local press there as well; they aren't notable, despite being mentioned in several local press articles. Having lots of references in an article doesn't make it notableClinkophonist (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned at the last AFD, the following are major metropolitan dailies in markets of more than a million people: Edmonton Journal, Ottawa Citizen, Vancouver Sun, Kansas City Times, Halifax Daily News. They're not the New York Times, the Washington Post, or The Daily Telegraph, but they're certainly on the next tier. Making statements like "they are minor newspapers" makes me seriously question whether you made any attempt at research for opening this AFD. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Another nomination so soon after the last one ended in a keep consensus, raising essentially exactly the same issues, is borderline tendentious. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sarcasticidealist. In addition, there are a number of editors working on improving the article and they should be given more time to access non-online sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - seems an interesting and notable character. Plenty of sources, nicely-referenced and -sized article. Furthermore, the previous AfD was only a couple of weeks ago - why is this second one really necessary? ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on procedural grounds, like the 3 votes above; this is too soon after a previously closed discussion to re-open it. On the substance, weak keep; the biog. doesn't seem wildly notable, but those who know the Canadian media (which I don't) seem to be fairly consistent that the subject has been widely referenced. seglea (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline KEEP - Although I am not fully sure if this biography meets notability guidelines, this article survived an AfD on 18 February 2009, less than two weeks ago. It is improper to nominate it again so soon. We can't just keep re-nominating articles for AfD until we get a result we like. Kingturtle (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - biased canvassing has taken place. Hipocrite (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing is always biased (at least I can't think of how it wouldn't be). Are you referring to Wikipedia:Canvas#Campaigning? I don't really know how that can be applied to this AFD? Could you elaborate on your concern?Smallman12q (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least one notification was sent out to a past participant in the 1st AFD that !voted "keep," asking them to participate here. Similar notifications were not sent out to any "delete" !voters. Hipocrite (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be on the Talk page. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person has no notability which makes him a good candidate for a wikipedia article. Civil disobedience campaigns can be grounds for inclusion, but in looking at the article and the sourcing I don't believe this individual merits inclusion at this time. JRP (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apparently passes the reliable sources guideline, but I don't think there's anything in this article that really amounts to a claim of notability. There seems to be nothing especially significant or important about this man that makes him deserving of a Wikipedia article; he's simply a religious protester who has received some local press attention, but we're not exactly talking Fred Phelps here. (Full disclosure: I found out about this AFD after seeing the message posted by User:Clinkophonist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Trimble. Don't know if that counts as canvassing or not, but it seems worth mentioning.) Robofish (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As was stated above, this article fails to state how this person is notable. --Mblumber (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article shows that he has received coverage from multiple reliable third party sources. That is the definition of notability. Could you clarify what you mean? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:POLITICIAN and refs from reputatable sources. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Esteffect (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shikiki

I do not believe this topic meets the threshold for inclusion of the encyclopaedia, as I have been unable to find significant coverage of it in independent reliable sources. {{PROD}} removed by creator. Skomorokh 01:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. JJL (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete because this is a brief article of unreferenced, unnotable, um ... stuff. --Quartermaster (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JJL. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jamaicans by net worth

Delete a list of one isn't really required; it's unsourced; and the one guy who's listed is actually Canadian not Jamaican, and appears in the Canadian list. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 16:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he's Canadian, not Jamaican. Jamaica is too poor to create people with significant net worth. Benefix (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo characters

AfDs for this article:

While it was kept in a previous discussion, the discussion was held more than two and a half years ago, when standards were far lower. As it stands, this list has no more use than a category does, and pretty much just has an assortment of lists that didn't warrant having their own lists and an absurd Miscellaneous section that just lists characters at random. Not only this, but it's the only article of its kind - we don't have a list of Sega characters that randomly covers Sega characters, nor do we have one for Square Enix characters. Why is Nintendo the sole exception? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep but remove non-bluelinked characters. Artw (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is video game trivia/cruft at best. Transwiki to a relevant Nintendo Wiki if needed (but I would think most of those have this type of list already). RobJ1981 (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but make into a list of lists, as already done with Lists of characters in the Fire Emblem series, and trim the excess material such as the Animal Crossing and Miscellaneous characters out. While lists and categories can and do coexist, a singular list of all Nintendo characters, in its current state, is likely unsustainable and very likely indiscriminate. Making into a list of lists would make it far more sustainable as well as discriminate. MuZemike 01:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose per MuZemike. Makes a lot more sense than duplicating work. Nifboy (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still useful as a single place to look, though I would rearrange in a single alphabetic sequence with the relevant works indicated. alternatively, handle as MuZemike suggests. Usefulness is the key factor for a list. For individual characters, the individual ones in a list do not have to be notable--far from it--this is the way to handle such characters. I think consensus on these character lists has indeed changed, and we now favor keeping them as a compromise. I would suggest making an article like this for the other producers also. That we dont have one article is not reason to delete another. DGG (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a category would be better. Second choice would be to change to a list of lists. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with the article, it just needs a cleanup. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on User:MuZemike's reasoning.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep could work as others have described Chzz ► 16:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note – I have a working copy of the article in a "list of lists" form in my Sandbox. However, I am not sure as to whether lists that were merged into their parent articles should be listed or not in the list (I know that redlinks are generally not allowed in such lists). I obviously removed those now-nonexistant lists as well as the excess lists such as the Pikmin, miscellaneous list, Animal Crossing characters, and lists that were stand-alone in the page like the StarTropics characters. If it looks good, I'll revise the list in the mainspace and move it to Lists of Nintendo characters. MuZemike 18:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and replace with a category which will make it redundant. LOL @ the "miscellaneous" section, the very epitome of WP:LISTCRUFT. Benefix (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cut out minor characters that don't have pages or own section of articles. Workster (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Improved (hopefully) – Implemented changes made in sandbox. MuZemike 02:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does this make it an actual list now or just a disambig page? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be a list as per the Stand-alone lists guideline as well as modeled after likewise similar lists in the lists of lists category. MuZemike 20:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in it's current state as a useful navigation page. I imagine it will need regularly pruning for minor charaters that slip in. Marasmusine (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's next? A list of all the different console lists of lists of videogame characters?--Sloane (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MuZemike and DGG. Useful and maintainable. -- Banjeboi 11:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hey man, you have killed the List of Nintendo Characters, man, is a list, not a category, for that we need to make many list of any series, we have characters that dont have site for list, like R.O.B., DeMille, Mii, M-09 (from Future game called Proyect Hammer), Bubbles, Cupid, Dr. Lobe (from Brian Academy) and Excebike Rider... all are one characters that have name and dont have own list. Go to kill the giant List of DC comics characters, that will be fun :Sarcasm:--190.44.69.237 (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 05:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Road course ringer

Rarely used neologism. Article is almost completely un-cited and does not establish the frequency of this term, nor does it provide an etymology. Google gives about 1500 hits for the term.[66] Mikeblas (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC) ([reply]

Keep - It's rarely used, but it's notable within racing (not only NASCAR). Not really a neologism, I remember hearing this in the 80s. §FreeRangeFrog 05:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of the 1510 hits Google returns for the term between quotation marks, the first one is the wikipedia article, followed by NASCAR. If NASCAR's website mentions it, then I would think it is a notable racing term. Dream Focus 07:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I did it too, but we should use Google counts more carefully. If you scroll to the end of the results instead of just looking at the estimated count on the first page, then there's only 160 hits.[67]. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~1100 ghits outside of Wiki mirrors indicates, at best, rare usage. Of the top hits, all uses are brief or in passing and the phrase itself hasn't received coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:NEO. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A quick Google search can be deceptive. I figure closer to 180 unique ghits outside of Wikipedia. -Verdatum (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whatever, 180 unique hits, 1100 total. It's clearly not a commonly used term. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep worthy of description Chzz ► 16:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that this term is actually used, and in that case is a keep. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without reliable sources backing up the list of ringers, this is little more than a Dictionary Definition of a term which is really just the logical linking of two existing terms (with more valid articles), Road course and Ringer. Combined with the lack of sources and the low Google hit count (see my comment above), to me, it just doesn't seem to add to the encyclopedia. -Verdatum (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NEO.--Sloane (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cook County Social Club

There are a number of ghits, which consist mainly of event listings and my space mentions for the groups. There's no evidence of coverage in reliable sources.

The one article type coverage I can find even acknowledges If they have their way, someday Cook County will hit the road. which seems to indicate they have no yet achieved the desired success. StarM 21:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chicago-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 21:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Although I have a different source, I too only find the Charleston gig. I also found a mention] in a Colorado newspaper.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found various articles about them appearing, e.g. this Chzz ► 16:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment discussing them appearing doesn't mean in depth coverage required for notability. StarM 01:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:N. Probably should be a speedy delete as spam. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Down and Above

Seems to be a nn local band with little evidence of notability or having met WP:MUSIC. It won a local battle of the bands but that seems to be it. StarM 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Down and Above packs in more than a thousand people in larger venues such as the Quest Club in Minneapolis." That was from your second link apparently proving non-notability. They toured with Quietdrive (and Dropping Daylight) and were partially responsible for the mixing of the new Quietdrive album (Deliverance). All of that information can be found looking through those links in the search you posted (the last also in the liner notes of the album). DrSturm (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 20:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article asserts notability, and the google news link provided some hits for that band that describe some notabiltiy. However, the article is unreferenced. --Sigma 7 (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator's "little evidence of notability" includes profiles of the band in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the two major newspapers in the MSA where the band is based. The article needs to be updated, but it doesn't deserve to be deleted. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead. While it doesn't say it applies to bands, it doesn't say bands are exempt. StarM 02:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG clearly states that this "guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people)." Your quote is from the WP:ORG section on non-commercial organziations -- this band is not a non-commercial organization. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Chzz ► 16:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the content suggests the band would meet WP:NMG, the lack of references means that it misses WP:V. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence that this group meets the criteria according to WP:BAND. It does not appear to have significant coverage by independent sources beyond local-level reviews or interviews involving the band talking about themselves. The only possible claim to notability I see is the ranking in the list of unsigned bands. However, I dismiss this, as I cannot establish the notability of Lowdown Magazine, and I'd prefer it if it had actually earned the number one spot (in line with guidelines like WP:CREATIVE.) -Verdatum (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: more independent coverage is needed. At this stage it's still a delete for mind. WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now if more media coverage surfaces then maybe recreate. -- Banjeboi 20:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC.--Sloane (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chak 17/14L

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chak 17/14L

Contested prod. No relevant Ghits, villages in general do not contain numbers, and with over 2k people you would expect that somebody on the internet would have said something at some time. Suspected WP:HOAX. Firestorm ^Talk 17:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Villages in Pakistani Punjab do in general contain numbers - see Chak (village). Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified villages are considered notable. Page 3 of this document verifies that this village exists and has a school, as does page 17 of this; this shows its mobile phone coverage; this, this and this tell us the zipcode of the village and there is news of a local funeral reported in the national press here. I don't think there's any doubt that this village exists, so it ahould have an article. The fact the local custom is to use numbers rather than names for villages shouldn't in any way change our usual standards for article inclusion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per proof supplied by Bridger — sounds really weird, but given the proof, I'm not doubting its existence. This makes me think of 555 95472 in the old Peanuts cartoons — if you can number a person, you can number a village, I guess. Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom. Given the evidence, it would appear that as though it does exist, however, incredible it sounds. I'm now recommending a speedy close as keep. Firestorm ^Talk 04:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was pretty skeptical from the title also when i first saw it, but that's apparently the way the government agency there is doing it. DGG (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NetCommissions

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. Only sources are trivial, press releases or primary sources. There's a fair number of ghits, but they all pretty much seem to be directories and the like that can be edited or info easily submitted to. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - few reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability and no valid third-party references. . . Rcawsey (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam Chzz ► 16:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Butterfield

Declined speedy, borderline case. Appears to fail WP:BIO, as none of the articles listed in the "references" section appear to be about Butterfield. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This name is mentioned in 34 Newsbank articles in the state of Illinois, one in NJ, and one op-ed in The New York Times.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentions aren't enough for an encyclopedia article. A key word in SchuminWeb's statement is "about." Are any of the Newsbank articles actually about her? The NYTimes letter is by her, and the Star Ledger piece is about someone else. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough news sources Butterfield%22 faith&um=1 here Chzz ► 16:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Google News hits seem almost exclusively to involve the use of her as a source of quotations on environmental topics, in her role as director of Faith in Place, not to provide the sort of information that could be used to construct a biographical article. (The New Jersey article cited by TonyTheTiger above is just a mention in a piece about someone else, and his New York Times citation is just a letter to the editor that Butterfield wrote, not an "op-ed.") Since there appears to be a growing consensus that her organization is not itself notable, I don't think that her position within it makes her notable. Deor (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually in looking through sources for Faith in Place I found more than enough to build Bio. She also has profiles on a few websites so that really isn't a problem here. She is widely quoted because she seems to be the goto inter-denominational religious person on environmental issues in regards to sustainable farming, conservationism, stewardship and clean energy within a religious context. -- Banjeboi 01:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see establishment of notability within the article, I fail to see sources strong enough to support WP:BIO in existence. If someone seriously does their research, a rewritten article may be possible in some universe...but when the lead section cannot explain why it is worth reading her biography, it strongly suggests that the article can be written from scratch if needed just as well as if this article was cleaned up. -Verdatum (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that's the case here, I came to this article from her organizational article which was a bad copyvio website promo mess. It's much better now. And this woman is behind it all.
Keep. I'm working on rewrite of the organization article and there are simply dozens upon dozens of interviews with her, mostly in religious-focussed media so WP:CSB may be at play here. There does already seem to be sources sourced here as well. -- Banjeboi 21:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just came across this award nomination article about her that may help here. -- Banjeboi 22:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She might fit in an article on Ecotheology, but she isn't notable enough on her own.--Sloane (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just found this which also lists her on the advisory counsel for a religious curriculum guide. Somewhat minor but shows she's involved and important and knowledgeable enough to be involved on that level. -- Banjeboi 01:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite much effort by Banjeboi, we still only have WP:OR (claims by editors that subject is notable because subject is mentioned in various places). All the refs appear to be news media mentioning the subject with no suggestion of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnuniq. Concrete evidence of meeting WP:BIO has not been adduced; spamming lists of inaccessible newspapers where articles about this person may or may not have appeared does not convince. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academia Electronica

Declined speedy. I was tempted to speedy this as a non-notable Web site, but with schools being excluded from A7, I am taking the side of caution. That said, this article certainly fails WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete not a "school" by even the most wacky definition. It's a web forum with all of 10 members who have collectively posted 15 threads between them. That's about as non-notable as websites get. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as above Chzz ► 16:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Textative

Contested prod. Original research about a neologism. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable neologism. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Quite a few Ghits for it, but it's still a non-notable neologism. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn Chzz ► 16:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEO, WP:NFT, etc Lets drink Tea 23:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making Time

Non-notable single on non-notable label. Did not chart. No claims to notability. Unreferenced tag since December 2007. Fails WP:NSONGS A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 16:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial coverage. JoannaMinogue (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. One slightly notable cover ain't enough. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwiki. MBisanz ^talk 05:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picdesk

No sources, WP:NOT - dictionary. No evidence of notability. The Rolling Camel (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary if sources can be found for a word that I've never come across in my years of studying English literature (though admittedly it's not the sort of things that Dickens would cover...) - otherwise delete. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki new one on me Chzz ► 16:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Donkey Kong characters. Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kremling

Covers a series of enemies of no notability, of which only one seems to have any real world importance at all. Just too limited in scope and references are non-existent to expand it much beyond where it is now. Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - unencyclopedically written, non-notable, unreferenced. The long list, and what it purports to show, is particularly entertaining, however! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you site a specific speedy deletion critera that this would fall under? The reason is while the reason you cite a good arguments for deleting an article none of them as far as I can tell are covered by the speedy deletion criteria. --70.24.180.231 (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when I say "speedy delete", I don't mean this, it's just a common phrase used at AfD to indicate that this seems to be a clear-cut case and should be dealt with quickly! Pardon me for being ambiguous!! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Donkey Kong characters as a plausible search term. MuZemike 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete though nothing a good cleanup and a bit of expansion couldn't fix. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I agree with MuZemike (again); plausible search terms shouldn't be redlinks.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "National Park Service". Retrieved 2009-03-09.

[1]