Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 2

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 1 August 3 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edging (masturbation)

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

Article fails WP:DICDEF. Any encyclopedic material which might theoretically come to light in the future could simply be inserted (ahem) in the masturbation or orgasm control articles. Notability also questionable; as evidenced by complete lack of wikilinks - even in the aforementioned articles. Article has been around for two years with no evidence of advancement. Matt Deres (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teaparty

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

This looks to be a non-notable neologism. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:17, 2 August 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 Minor places in Beleriand. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brethil

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

Not clear why this needs its own article. Noisalt (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inkstains

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

Was planning to PROD this but that has aparently been tried already and the author simply removed the tag with no comment. The article basicaly fail all notability criteria, there is no mention of any coverage by any 3. parties. There is one reference to a band profile site where they say they are working on it and who is involved but that is aparently the extent of what is know about it. Sherool (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • From WP:CRYSTAL: All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. From WP:NALBUMS: All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The listed references don't seem to satisfy WP:RS. — Rankiri (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you've conceded album would likely (given NA status; definitely) warrant an article after release it seems the logical conclusion is that the future album status is warranted. Since it's a stub article and it's a NA nothing is gained through deletion. It's tripled referenced... two third parties one in print form, how many other future album stubs are tripled cited for a stub?Iforgetsorry (talk) 07:53, 4 August 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 This was a really hard decision to make, seeing as the votes were mainly split between "Keep" and "Merge/Redirect". I decided to close this AFD as "close", partially becuase I believe that this encylopedia is based off the fact that we should improve an article, rather than do away with it. As a result, I suggest cleaning up this article, especially its prose and NPOV. Otherwise, if the article remains in its current state, someone will simply have to merge it to Top_and_bottom#Switch or versatile. Cheers, I'mperator 18:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Versatile (sex)

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

This appears to be a non-notable neologism. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse me of bad-faith. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never did; read my comment again carefully--perhaps with more attention rather than speed. I did, however, accuse you of sloppiness and shoddy editorial workmanship. You may be a quick reader, but it seems you're not a very thorough one. Owen× ☎ 17:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This seems directly related to Flip flop (sex) AfD. -- Banjeboi 03:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Top_and_bottom#Switch or versatile which also should cover versatile and other related terms there is no need to belabour every term that could be used. This is not censorship but housing relative information in the same place - if it grows out of that article then maybe. But this is, IMHO, a poorly constructed and sourced chunk to advocate for more inclusion that distances itself from BDSM. Guess what? It's not helpful. The Top and bottom article already clearly states these terms are about sex and BDSM people simply use them, I simply see no reason to have redundancy on this. -- Banjeboi 03:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unsourced}}--Meister und Margarita (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Simply not true. There were a lot of reliable sources before you deleted them all. Here some examples: [4] [5] [6] [7].--Meister und Margarita (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not exactly. Of those three sources only the first might be reliable and unfortunately it doesn't matter if it is because the word "versatile" doesn't seem to be anywhere on it. -- Banjeboi 12:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Simply not true (2). It's 4, not 3. I even quoted the following sentence from Human sexuality. An Encyclopedia: "In large cities in the United States, gay men are for the most part expected to be versatile, not only in top versus bottom roles (if any) but also in the choice of particular acts (e.g., oral, anal, masturbatory)." This proves that the term had been in use and commly spread so that it has been included in an encyclopedia already in 1994. (Human sexuality. An Encyclopedia, edited by Vern L. Bullough, Bonnie Bullough, New York, London 1994, 280)--Meister und Margarita (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oops, didn't see the fourth, that one's OK although it seems like a self-published research paper; I'll give you 0.5 out of a possible 4.0 which isn't terribly helpful. Again, I think the term is notable but I see no reason it can't grow in the main article first. There is, after all, no versatile unless placed in the top-bottom continuum. Ergo I think it helps our readers more to keep it in that context as the very first question must be - "versatile about what, when, where, why and how" all of which are in the other article. -- Banjeboi 12:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Top_and_bottom#Switch or versatile. I'd say "merge", but there's no sourced or NPOV information in the article. --Alynna (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is indeed a shameful jump-gun nomination, that gives absolutely no leeway to the article author to improve whatever shortcomings a first-draft article might have. Did any of those concerned with poor sourcing care to look for sources? They come up pretty easily. Say, for instance
    • Gay men and anal eroticism: tops, bottoms, and versatiles‎ - Page 12 - by Steven Gregory Underwood - Social Science - 2003 - 225 pages
    • The Handbook of Sexuality in Close Relationships‎ - Page 356 - by John H. Harvey, Amy Wenzel, Susan Sprecher - Psychology - 2005 - 104 pages
    • Gay relationships‎ - Page 86 - by John P. De Cecco - Social Science - 1987 - 290 pages
    • Gay macho: the life and death of the homosexual clone‎ - Page 88 - by Martin P. Levine, Michael S. Kimmel - Social Science - 1998 - 260 pages
    • Soulfully gay: how Harvard, sex, drugs, and integral philosophy drove me ...‎ by Joe Perez - Biography & Autobiography - 2007 - 328 pages
The list continues ad libitum. I have no opinion on a stand-alone article or a merge. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not exactly, this was started when Flip flop (sex) AfD started to go down. -- Banjeboi 12:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see, would have been useful if it had been mentioned in the deletion rationale. Still, there seem to be plenty of RS, indicative that this has expansion potential beyond a mere dicdef. It is certainly not a "non-notable neologism". I see no convincing deletion rationale. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed. Both creator and nom seemed to jump the shark a bit here likely as newbish to the whole organic-growth model. I too see no reason to delete per se as merge/redirect as I see with the flip=flop article as well; these terms should be treated within the parent article until it serves our readers to break it out. -- Banjeboi 13:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my eyes it's okay that also a minority gets the space - but please let's not neglect the mainstream. Versatile (sex) is the equivalent to Switch (BDSM). The only difference is that versatile behavior in all male sex is much more common then switching in BDSM. - By the way, Benjiboi: Human sexuality. An Encyclopedia, edited by Vern L. Bullough, Bonnie Bullough, New York, London 1994 is listed by The Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology at the Humboldt University Berlin [8], i.e. fullfills all requirements for an undisputable and reliable source. This book was already quoted in the first draft of this article.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've removed an new set of sources that were also unreliable, original research and that start of the list of versatile performers which according to the article would encompass at least � of all male porn performers. I can't speak to the reliability of the non-online sources. -- Banjeboi 23:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable sociological and anthropological topic.
Non-notable is not shown.
Neologism is not shown. I offer a refutation of it anyway. WP:DELETION gives a handy definition of Neologism: "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms". The usage of the term is shown with RS, ergo it is not a neologism.
The relevance of "dictionary definition" and WP:NAD is not shown, and in the first instance, not even elucidated; I cannot see even see how this might relate to any article of more than one paragraph, which describes an activity, and the use of the word that describes it. I have taken note from the discussion above that the changing the title to Versatility (sex), as the title is already a noun, does not address the concern about it being a dictionary definition. Ironically, it would seem that elucidation of the use of the word as a noun, as is not currently evident in the article, is called for. Anarchangel (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Resolute 03:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing riddles

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

Totally inappropriate information for an encyclopaedia. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:56, 2 August 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. Icewedge (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shep (American dog)

edit
Shep (American dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I question the notability of this animal. (Touching story though.) Irbisgreif (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khumalo Derivative

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

Original research, published on a personal blog and unrefereed sites, no support or references from anywhere else. The facts that it not only doesn't make sense but is flavored with a dollop of ranting against the imperialism of Western mathematics is the icing on the cake. ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:38, 2 August 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 Satu Mare#Gymnasiums, as most of the content in the article is already included in the target article. Cheers, I'mperator 18:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Creangă Gymnasium Satu Mare

edit
Ion Creangă Gymnasium Satu Mare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is absolutely no indication that this school is any way notable, and there are plenty of indications that it is not: it is one of the schools offering education to people between the ages of 11 and 14 8 and 14, so it's not even a high school, and it is located in a rather large but provincial city in Romania (when there is a huge probability that most or all such schools in Romania, the capital included, are not worth separate articles). With or without agreement about WP:SCHOOL, there are no independent sources in any way attesting this school's notability, and we probably have an article only because the creator is a fan of Satu Mare - which may be laudable, but in this case fails WP:NOT. (And btw, since it includes a primary education section, as per the text in its current form, the title is an obvious misnomer: it's not a gymnasium, it is simply a school.) Dahn (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep – withdrawn by nominator. Noisalt (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bettsometer

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

Has been tagged as possibly non-notable for two years. I can't find any sources about this at all. Probably doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep instrument used by inspectors and maintenance engineers to ensure that the canvas or fabric covering on wings is still OK. A Google search finds lots of talk about the instrument. Contrary to popular belief there are allot of fabric covered airplanes still flying. RP459 (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian influence operations in Estonia

edit
AfDs for this article:
Russian influence operations in Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is WP:SYNTH. The article name is in violation of WP:NPOV (because there is no proof of any such "influence operations"). No source has been provided for the claims in the lead, although they have been fact-tagged for a long time and this has been requested many times. There are no similar articles in WP either (there is no American influence operations in Pakistan or American influence operations in (name your country). If this material should be in Wikipedia at all, it belongs to Estonia-Russia relations, not in a POV article such as this. Offliner (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article is reasonably well cited (considering how short the article is, even very well cited) and describing a phenomenon worth its own article. Nominator claims it is "POV article" without bringing any contradicting sources, that is not a reason for deletion - neither is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Sander Säde 06:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at your comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia. Two of them are especially interesting...firstly...Handpicking one-sided sources, including fringe positions, excluding relevant (and sourced) comments from the original section. Even the name of the article is a clear violation of NPOV, the underlying principle of all Wikipedia...funny that I have now gone and attributed opinions, and they are all the opinions of the Estonian Security Police...you again used the same comment with...Right now all the sources in the article are cherry-picked to represent a certain POV. How is it that you can vote delete in that AfD, yet vote keep in this article? Especially given that the article that you voted delete was even more well sourced, and included a whole-host of sources which weren't from the Estonian secret police. Is that WP:NOTADVOCATE I smell in the air? --Russavia Dialogue 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adequately sourced, there's nothing "POV" about the subject matter itself (particularly since it's well sourced) and the topic is sufficiently different from Estonia-Russia relations to merit its own article.radek (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting comment, given your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia. --Russavia Dialogue 17:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which comment are you referring to? The "per nom"? And what's interesting about it or any other one? That one was a POV fork. This one's not.radek (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can one seriously write that it isn't a POV fork. It is a jumble of allegations from the Estonian secret police, on a range of issues which one can find in Category:Estonia–Russia relations, and thrown together with some other WP:SYN material, to form an article which attempts to prove that there is Russian influence operations in Estonia. That is a textbook definition of a WP:POVFORK, and also WP:NOTADVOCATE - since when have we been a place for the Estonian government to disseminate it's propaganda? --Russavia Dialogue 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no personal rant against post-communist Russia, but the sources suggest present day Russia is not completely successful in elemitating previous communist practices. Joklolk (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix and keep. The article has an air of POV that may not pass the smell test - it needs to be worked on. But the topic is unfortunately real (see eg. 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia) and substantial enough for an article. This AfD seems to pass, perhaps the nominator will spare us for third nomination. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge This is a hopeless piece of rubbish that should be expunged from WP, as per User:Ezhiki. The article over-utilises sources originating from the Estonian KGB, and is used as a WP:SOAPBOX for their political aims. Read the opening sentence. "Russian influence operations in Estonia form a complex system of financial, political, economic and espionage activities in Republic of Estonia for the purposes of influencing Estonia's political and economic decisions in ways considered favourable to Russian Federation and conducted under the doctrine of near abroad." According to whom? The Estonian KGB? Look at the article headings - Cultivation of hatred? WTF is this? An encyclopaedia or an avenue for every person with their own grudge to utilise to push their political aims. The editor directly above me has mentioned 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia as an example; read the article, and one will plainly see that after all the accusations that were flung, the Estonian government finally admitted that they had no actual evidence of Russian government involvement; but it's the usual thing; fling enough shit, do it early and do it often, and people will believe it, and they will not mention the articles printed on Page 54 of the newspaper squeezed in between an advert for baby nappies and diarrhoea medication. What is abso-f'cking-lutely hilarious is that the majority of the article deals with Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia, which low-and-behold was merged at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia. So instead of having an article dealing with that issue directly, we hide it in amongst another article, and then create another article dealing with the issue, except now we use it as evidence of actual (that's what is presented in the article) Russian influence operations in Estonia? You have to be f'ing kidding me. Merge any salvageable content to Estonia–Russia relations and delete. --Russavia Dialogue 17:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, tone down the language. Kaitsepolitsei is hardly "Estonian KGB", it is normal security agency as it exists in every country in the world. Using such ethnically loaded and highly explicit expressions is hardly suitable for Wikipedia. --Sander Säde 17:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the FSB being called the KGB all the time, and as Kapo is security police, and given its history, it is apt to call it the Estonian KGB. Nothing ethnically loaded about that. Is that all there is to respond to in relation to my merge/delete comments? Because there is plenty to comment on, so let's not get sidetracked with semantics. --Russavia Dialogue 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, FSB is officially the successor of KGB, if you remember. But what do you dislike about Kapo's history - or are you buying the nutcase theory of Kapo existing during German occupation? --Sander Säde 19:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest editors read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia, and the comments by the closing admin. Given that the entire premise of the article is based upon allegations by the Estonian secret police (with a couple of editors removing ANY and ALL references to the words alleged in an attempt to portray the allegations as a matter of fact...talk about advocacy), without providing a shred of evidence to back up the claims, then it is a perfect example of a WP:POVFORK. --Russavia Dialogue 08:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that the article is based upon "allegations" is one which you tried to introduce into the article in violation of a Wikipedia guideline. Contravening a wiki guideline and then giving it as a reason for deletion is ... well, not a good reason for deletion.radek (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not in violation of WP policies and guidelines. It is exactly why in the Alexander Litvinenko article it states "In an article written by Litvinenko in July 2006, and published online on Zakayev's Chechenpress website, he claimed that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile.[66] Litvinenko also claimed that Anatoly Trofimov and Artyom Borovik knew of the alleged paedophilia." as opposed to the same statement without alleged, because there is absolutely ZERO evidence put forward to demonstrate it is true. And the same reason that alleged needs to be placed on the article, because all we have is allegations of the Estonian KGB, without a shred of evidence to back up their statements. But hey, let's start Glorification of Nazism and fascism in the Estonian states and see how quick editors such as yourself will run to it in order to present them only as allegations, rather than matters of fact, which is what is happening in this article. It is yet another attempt at advocacy on Wikipedia, and it deserves to be expunged. --Russavia Dialogue 00:29, 6 August 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 DRV is that way. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of firsts in the United States

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of firsts in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted by AfD. Recreated. Prod contested. An unmanageable list with vague inclusion criteria (what exactly is a notable "first"?). Also trivia. Tim Song (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inclusion criteria are way too vague. Could be split into "List of population firsts," etc. Specific topics would be good to have "firsts" about, but a list based around the general concept of a first is "completely unmanageable" as Tim Song said. Noisalt (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs expansion. Tsepel Cory (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. needs to be bigger. Tsepel Cory (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More data. 68.192.164.253 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance (Terminator)

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

lacks independent reliable sources attesting to the notability of the fictional concept. Tagged for sourcing for over a year and a half. Otto4711 (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per Dreamfocus. Also the deletion rationale is poor, as Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE. I suspect this nomination is a spillover from the battleground at Notability (fict), which is sad. Anyway, did Otto4711 and Noisalt, who are concerned about sources, carry out the most basic search themselves? Otto4711 might have been expected to do so according to WP:BEFORE. I would say that among the 114 Gbook hits there might be some refs that could satisfy the two editors' very high standards. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails Wikipedia's requirements for independent verifiability. Mintrick (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a frequent and very serios misunderstanding. I quote from WP:FAILN: "Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present."; and further down "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources.", and my favorite: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.". Nominating article for deletion merely because they presently are unsourced is way out of the line (nevertheless a frequent occurrence) and the "active effort" to look for sources, also by the nominator, is repeated in WP:BEFORE (also frequently ignored, this case included). Deletion should be a last resort, not the first. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into a list of organizations in the series. Either way works; deletion is unnecessary. Merging removes the requirement for separate notability, to the extent one may think it applies. DGG (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note we do not have any limit on improvements, nor do we delete as unsourced, no matter how long it has been unsourced. If someone wants to delete as unsourceable, the burden is on them to show it. DGG (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How would we show that anything is unsourceable? Noisalt (talk) 16:45, 8 August 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. Copyvio. —Sean Whitton / 22:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lora Love

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

Given the accolades this rather opinionated article assigns to Ms Love, I would have expected to get some citable sources out of Google on her, but aside from her apparently being in FHM in the Phillipines, she doesn't appear to have anything going for her. Given the lack of sources, and unless any can be found, I don't believe this can ever become a sourced article so am putting it up for deletion as non-notable. —Sean Whitton / 21:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio of subject's myspace page (under last youtube video in scrolling column at right)[9]. May also qualify for speedy as advertising. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:50, 2 August 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. JForget 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Online

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

Fails WP:WEB, WP:REF, WP:V: non-notable video game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khumalo Derivative

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

Original research, published on a personal blog and unrefereed sites, no support or references from anywhere else. The facts that it not only doesn't make sense but is flavored with a dollop of ranting against the imperialism of Western mathematics is the icing on the cake. ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable General Hospital characters

edit
List of notable General Hospital characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This looks like a list that is very likely to get very large. It also seems very unlikely to be notable information. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duer Yoa

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

Non-notable athlete. He does appear to be sponsored by an adidas development program in Australia [12] [13], however, WP:ATHLETE guidelines state: "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." and "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." I would argue that his 54th out of 108 performance in the JUNIOR race (an 8 km race) of the 2008 IAAF World Cross Country Championships does not reflect competition at the highest level of his sport.[14][15] Please comment as this vote could help shape WP:ATHLETE. Location (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. In fact, he meets WP:ATHLETE for having "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport", i.e. IAAF World Cross Country Championships. "Level" here clearly means "level of competition", not "level of performance" because: 1) the rest of the sentence in WP:ATHLETE would not make sense otherwise (..."usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships"), 2) "highest level of performance" would be hopelessly vague and useless as a guideline, 3) if I'm not mistaken, anyone who ever competed e.g. at the Olympics was thus far de facto considered notable, regardless of his placing. GregorB (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, this would mean that none of the junior athletes would have any chance of meeting WP:ATHLETE unless they also competed at the senior level. True, Duer Yoa could have entered the senior competition, but in some sports (e.g. tennis) this is not possible. GregorB (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after edit conflict)Notability for an athlete is generally based on what he or she has achieved, and our task is to evaluate his or her achievements objectively. WP:ATHLETE is a guideline that really instructs us to evaluate only one objective piece of evidence: the level of competition he or she has managed to attain with his or her success. In this respect, this athlete has achieved enough success to participate at the JUNIOR level of world championship. The relevance to showing his placing is to provide an objective assessment of how well he performed at that level: We can clearly ascertain that he is a middle of the pack runner among the second tier of cross country runners. (As GregorB has suggested, a case for notability could be made if someone places very high at the junior level.) Location (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm changing my vote. While I failed to note the difference between junior and senior levels when initially considering this, I feel that my previous remark is still relevant, i.e. that WP:ATHLETE puts the bar too high for junior athletes. If you take it literally, even the winner of the junior race at the IAAF World Cross Country Championships is not notable. GregorB (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the Australian article and Adidas sponsorship are of some note, I don't think he passes the threshold of notability. However, it's worth keeping this one in mind for possible restoration at a later date. Should he compete at a higher level – it's a very good basis for the start of an article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU! 23:55, 3 August 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. (X! · talk)  · @020  ·  23:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALF on TV

edit
ALF on TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

violates WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a place for indiscriminate lists of stuff mhking (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have added in suitable references for info. Lukerobbins (talk) 22.01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge back to ALF (TV series), long though that article may be getting. Allow create as seperate list article List of countries and TV stations transmitting ALF - past and present per WP:STAND after providing sourcing. Sorry Luke... I appreciate your work, but IMDB is not considered suitable for sourcing. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Remane per conventions. Changed my !vote after realization that this list article can be well-souced to meet WP:LIST and WP:STAND.[16] A merge might serve the project... but a flat deletion contravenes WP:PRESERVE and does not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael, appreciated, but this info has been on Wiki for years, unsourced. You are suggesting merging it back with the main ALF page (still unsourced) but meaning a long, horrible looking and long winded page will be back in existance for a very well known classic TV show. If you'd like to suggest some possible sources for this info other than IMDB then you could always add them, i will keep looking and hopefully add some more. Lukerobbins (talk) 22.12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I accept that you intended the list to be a guideline supported WP:Spinout of the main article, as such information always tends to overburden the parent article and Wikipedia allows such. I left a note on yourtalk page suggesting the creation of a workspace. I agree that your article makes sense, and likely meets WP:STAND. However, the reality is that you will be seeng a number of comments toward delete that do not feel so. Placing it somewhwre so it may be worked on over time might be best. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Violates WP:NOT#DIR, which says Wikipedia is not an "electronic program guide" or TV Guide. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This list of places where the series aired historically and currently is not a program guide, and so does not quite fall within WP:NOT#DIR. It should be possible to find other-country reviews, past and present, that show notability in those countries, both historically and currently and so source the article as List of countries and TV stations transmitting ALF per the various precedents for such lists. However, the scope of that research will preclude it happening within the next few days. Is there a WP:DEADLINE? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it is airing there currently, then that would be a program guide. If it previously aired there, how is it notable? Either way, the page should be deleted either under WP:NOT#DIR or WP:N, take your pick. My !vote stands. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        In my reading of WP:NOT#DIR, I see that the current article fails your assertion, as it is not a "directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business", and further, if properly formatted, such lists are actually quite acceptable per that guideline. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re - notability. I think it shows the impact the ALF show had. It is one of the few TV shows in existence to have never been off air (with either re-runs or syndicated episodes) somewhere in the world since its creation over 25 years ago. Possibly it may be a better idea to just link in the main ALF article to an external site which has this information rather than putting it on Wiki if it is innapropriate. I was just trying to clean up the existing article as it was a mess. Thanks for your input eitherway. Lukerobbins (talk) 22.58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • thanks for the suggestion Michael. I have done that while i continue to add sources (have added a few more to the article) so if the article gets deleted in meantime i can work on it before re-submitting. Just seems crazy this info has been on here for years without any problems lol, and some people suggesting delete have not bothered to actually read this properly to see it is a WP:Spinout and not a TV Guide. Lukerobbins (talk) 22.29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete This page is absolutely utterly useless. Horrible trivia that is not pertinent to understanding ALF Triplestop x3 00:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With respects, the title needs to be changed certainly to better reflect the contents, as the list is neith indiscriminate nor trivial... it is simply a list. Per WP:Spinoff and WP:STAND, such lists are eminently acceptable to the project, even if one believes them to be absolutely utterly useless horrible trivia... as when they are provably not so, they serve their purpose in improving the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main problems I see are:
    • The name of the article is slightly misleading
    • There is a whole jumble of information under the tables that should be incorporated.

--Scouto2 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (X! · talk)  · @171  ·  03:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Bergen

edit
List of people from Bergen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List provides little information that is not provided by the category Category:People from Bergen. Yes, the list does specify the birth and death years of each person, but this is not enough additional information to justify the existence of this list in addition to the category. It is unlikely that anyone would be interested in comparing the birth and death years of a group of people that have little in common except for their having been born or having lived a significant part of their lives in Bergen. Secondly, since it is not dynamic, as a category is, it is bound to stay unsynchronised with the previously mentioned category. Aqwis (talk) 19:33, 2 August 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. (X! · talk)  · @171  ·  03:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metal improvement

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

My attention was drawn to this article when an identical copy turned up as Metal Improvement Company(MIC). As two of the five links are to that company then this could be being used as a WP:COATRACK. The real problem is that as it stands this is a very elementary level Q and A. I'm not sure, though, whether it should be deleted, or if the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant development, or this should simply be a redirect. If it is a redirect, the term appears in a number of different articles. I42 (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While the subject is certainly worth an article, this one is better off being deleted than re-written into encyclopedic style. Besides, we do have a variety of articles on metal tempering, steel treatment and such. De728631 (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Nom. I have struggled to find a reference that uses the phrase "metal improvement" not as, or in relation to the name of a company offering such services --TheSmuel (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is an FAQ for questions that probably aren't all that frequently asked. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoia Dance Party

edit
Paranoia Dance Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence that the band meets the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 19:15, 2 August 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 advertising -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearshore Call Center Services

edit
Nearshore Call Center Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advert page. I am unable to find any references anywhere that would indicate that this organization is notable. Triplestop x3 19:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (X! · talk)  · @172  ·  03:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Soghoian

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

Soghoian is an individual notable for one event, that of the fake boarding passes. As a researcher, he fails WP:ACADEMIC which requires significant contributions to his field (computer security). Google Scholar (since I don't have ready access to Web of Knowledge) shows less than 15 citations for the most cited article, which was not published in a peer reviewed journal. Calwatch (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I think that Taksi deserves considerable credit for learning within five minutes of signing up for an account that autobiographies are called “vanity articles” here, that they are disapproved, and that the significance expected of subjects is called “notability.” It’s almost as though he/she had edited here before. —teb728 t c 03:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true. Now why don't you turn your dazzling detective abilities onto the link of anonymous IP addresses emanating from Indiana that make up the corpus of this guy's Wikipedia entry.Gpurcell (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Gpurcell[reply]
  • NOTE to closing admin: The subject of the article presented a article at DEFCON 2009 and exposed the practices of a forum, which is currently not very happy with him. There is a forum post that explicitly lists this AfD as a way of getting back at him. Link: [18] --Michael Greiner 03:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true. He posted his Wiki page which was clearly a vanity project. The motivation of bringing up for AfD is rather irrelevent..what is important is that the page in question does not meet Wiki guidelines for academic notability. Gpurcell (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Gpurcell[reply]
  • Keep. Based on references in the article Soghoian meets the general notability guideline. The nomination and the “Delete” arguments above are not apt, for the coverage is for several things—not just fake boarding passes. And although he is a Ph.D. candidate, the article does not portray him as an academic. —teb728 t c 07:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with the above that he has formed something of a track record in security issues, notable enough to merit named mention and quotes in high-profile news publications, e.g. Washington Post and New York Times, more than once. This would seem to handily satisfy WP:GNG. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy vs Ghostbusters

edit
Freddy vs Ghostbusters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fan film. Gosox5555 (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Ghostbusters

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

Fails WP:NF. Also a fanfic. Gosox5555 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also block the user who created it, the article has been AFD 'FOUR' times.Gosox5555 (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. --MrStalker (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandamattom

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

Contested prod. Fails notability. MrStalker (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has nothing to do with verifiability. --MrStalker (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. --MrStalker (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hussey College Warri

edit
Hussey College Warri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable. MrStalker (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrm, what? According to? --MrStalker (talk) 19:06, 2 August 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 by John (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 23:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detective Dan

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

Article's subject is a series of books which has not been published or sold to a publisher. Created by the books' author, as stated in article. bonadea contributions talk 18:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Fontaine

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers notability criteria. Oscarthecat (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Abelson

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers notability criteria. --Oscarthecat (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we losing sight of the guidelines?
  • Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
One significant role in a television show
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Nope
  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
Nope
Can't see how she meets these criteria, from the article or from when I've searched for details. --Oscarthecat (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respects, it is important to not let the trees get in the way of our viewing the forest. I do not know what search parameters you used to see whether or not she meets the governing criteria WP:GNG... but I found a few things...
  1. In The Stage, Natalie Anglesey writes "Fortunately young Sophie Abelson bailed them out with a terrific performance as the bubbly, blonde Barbara Windsor. She looks incredibly like the original and her delivery as the giggly starlet is spot on. She not only saved the day, she saved the play." Sound like decent recognition from a reviewer for a notable role in a notable production.
  2. In the Manchester Evening News, Alan Hulme writes "The deliberately compact setting of cutaway caravan interior copes with sightline problems in this three-sided auditorium set-up but it restricts physical action. Also, with the exception of Sophie Abelson as Windsor - who gloriously dominates proceedings - the other two leads aren't look-alike enough to suspend disbelief." Sounds like another positive accolade for that notable role in a notable production.
  3. In British Theatre Guide, David Chadderton wrote "Sophie Abelson, however, is absolutely superb as Barbara Windsor. She has perfected her walk, her gestures, her laugh and her voice, but this is more than just an impression and she gives a powerful performance."
So... the television show you grant, along with positive reviews for powerful stage work, kinda push her over the bar in WP:GNG and WP:ENT for me. Her career is more than just what she has done lately on the telly. The article needs work, but that's a matter for cleanup... and AfD is not for cleanup. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. (X! · talk)  · @172  ·  03:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Sturzaker

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers notability criteria. Oscarthecat (talk) 18:21, 2 August 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. (X! · talk)  · @172  ·  03:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Willison (musician)

edit
John Willison (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication of notability. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I put a prod on this, which was removed with the message contest deletion because the person is notable in the edit summary. I placed the PROD originally, as the only reliable reference I could find was the staff listing of the place where he currently works - which I added. All the other hits on a Google search were wiki links. The creator of the page the editor who removed the PROD failed to leave a message on the discussion page explaining why this musician is notable. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will not bite at the bait which is not helpful in discussions.Mcharg (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Boulton

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

Contested prod. No references to third party sources (or any sources, for that matter) = WP:BLP violation. Claim to notability is rather flimsy. The JPStalk to me 17:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Jane Boulton, please JPS I will do anything absolutly anything for you if you just leave it and all my wiki's, including thisngs to do with Doctors, alone!

Reply soon,

Redped

xxxx.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Redped (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 August 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 SNOW delete . Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youth champions leauge

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

No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:57, 2 August 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. (X! · talk)  · @172  ·  03:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mullaschery

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

PRODded by me, PROD seconded by an editor from Wikiproject Kerala and then removed by an IP. PROD reason - "NN local family, unable to find any RS refs to support the claim. The name exists as I found a couple of Ghits for it, but nothing at all in Gbooks, news or search to show notability for the family. Also not to be confused with Mullassery which is in northern Kerala and is a family name there, as opposed to this, in southern Kerala." Rationale still applies. Delete. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 16:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of Barry Bonds

edit
The Curse of Barry Bonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The sources provided in this article only verify stated facts; they do not establish any notability for the subject itself. This article was previously PRODed and two other editors endorsed the reasoning behind the PROD (same as given above). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blogs are not reliable sources. Bonds was asked about the curse but acknowledged that such a thing doesn't exist; in that source, the curse is mentioned as being possible but hasn't received any wide coverage. The third article shown is from a local sports source and probably wouldn't count as "wide coverage" either since it's local to the team. The curse articles you reference, in addition to the Curse of Billy Penn and the Curse of Fred Merkle, have significant coverage in reliable sources, as defined in WP:V. The rest of the sources only verify factual statements, as stated above. KV5 (Talk • Phils)
    • I included the blog as a reference that fans are acknowledging the curse. Reference #4 [20] in the article also is a national source covering the curse. Of course Bonds denied the curse I think it is notable because it was from an article from the AP and Bonds was asked about the curse. Just because he denied does make it less notable.Curseofbonds (talk)
Comment even though I agree with the AfD, I think the article is well written. You have done a good job explaining the curse (if there even is one). TheWeakWilled 11:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to me that this is one of the many "curses" that bloggers that are bored make up to explain a few losing seasons. A curse is when a team doesn't win the World Series for 100 years, or 86 years and the ball gets by Buckner. Unless this is going to be a long term thing, it isnt notable. Maybe in years to come there will be wider coverage. TheWeakWilled 11:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment "a few losing seasons"?? The Pirates losing is unprecedented in the history of professional sports, 16 soon to be 17 season without have a winning record.Curseofbonds (talk)
      • Except that 16 consecutive was already done before. So don't say unprecedented. 17 consecutive is only one more than 16, and this team is obviously not committed to winning right now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Phillies only had one winning season from 1918-1948, so this sort of losing is precidented. Teams go through struggles, but to call a 16 year struggle a curse may be jumping the gun. TheWeakWilled 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it only constitutes a legitimate curse when you come close to winning but don't quite make it (eg the media prattled on about the curse of the billy goat more after Steve Bartman intervened). If there is any "Bonds curse", it is possibly that he didn't win a World Series despite being on some good teams (the Pittsburgh team just before he left, the Giants team that won 100 games but didn't make the playoffs, or losing the 2002 World Series in 7 games). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:V. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 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 SNOW delete . Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic Soldier

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

Non-notable, Google doesn't turn up reliable secondary sources. —Sean Whitton / 16:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we did it was under another name - this article has been speedied twice in 2008, but there were no other deletions and no talk page to record a failed AfD. —Sean Whitton / 16:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I nom'd it yesterday and the result was speedy. Beach drifter (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was a a few days ago Beach drifter (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the one I'm thinking of. I knew I wasn't crazy. in that case, 'delete, as failing to meet notability requirements. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I moved the current article from soldier to Soldier so that would be why. —Sean Whitton / 21:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy delete. Per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's comment - nice detective work! —Sean Whitton / 16:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Encounter

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

This article has gone through AfD once and was deleted, and I'm now putting it up again because once more it fails to assert notability outside of its Catholic camping community. —Sean Whitton / 15:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article demonstrates that the camp has a long history and that it is relevant not only to the Christian camping community but to the camping community at large and to the general public in Edmonton, Alberta.

This article is considerably better researched than the numerous other articles about summer camps on wikipedia (List of summer camps) and cites print sources which these other articles lack. --Hilu 2 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote The camp is not very notable but the article does have some sources. I object strongly to the statement that because the people involved are Catholic their contributions somehow seem to have less value. Please don't mention people's religion in AfD nominations.Northwestgnome (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, this really wasn't what I meant! I was simply pointing out that it doesn't even appear to be notable in the subject of camping, only in the smaller subset of Catholic camping, showing that it really isn't notable at all (in my view). The actual religion is irrelevent - I would have still said it had it been "camping with bananas". —Sean Whitton / 16:40, 2 August 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 SNOW delete . Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Letherbridge Central (UK Parliament constituency)

edit
Letherbridge Central (UK Parliament constituency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fictional parliament constituency from the soap Doctors. Can't see that this could meet any notability guideline. In any case, has no hits on google or google news/news archives, and with no references is unverifiable. BelovedFreak 14:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doublebase

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

This article is pure spam for a non-notable skin care product. Neelix (talk) 13:56, 2 August 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 SNOW close . Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pogba

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

Contested PROD. Original reason for PROD was "player has never made an appearance in a senior competition for a professional club, thereby failing WP:ATHLETE". The reason for removing the PROD was given at Talk:Paul Pogba. The fact, however, remains that this player is 16 years old and is unlikely to get anywhere near the first team at Manchester United for several years. We must deal with the facts as they are now, and Pogba has done nothing in his career to confer notability. – PeeJay 13:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diaper cake

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Failed prod. Toddst1 (talk) 13:52, 2 August 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. Nja247 10:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ace of Base songs

edit
List of Ace of Base songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of Ace of Base unreleased songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both not notable, unsourced (particularly the "unreleased songs" article), repeated info already found in Ace of Base discography. Fails WP:NOT#IINFO at the very least. eo (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • My objection was that individual list entries don't have to be notable and the list itself doesn't seem to violate any policies (edit: with the possible exception of WP:V). I agree that these ~101 songs could probably be merged with Ace of Base discography (27KB) but I don't believe that such merging proposals—as well as initial requests for sources—should be brought to AfD. — Rankiri (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 13:47, 2 August 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, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith talk 16:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Tel Aviv gay centre shooting spree

edit
2009 Tel Aviv gay centre shooting spree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Wiki is not a current event site. Nor is it a News Site Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so if I waited five more minutes this wouldn't be a current event? The source is from today? How is that inline with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could have allowed it to develop for a little longer than five minutes... "current events" aren't forbidden on Wikipedia. There's an entire section on the Main Page not to mention an entire portal. --candle•wicke 13:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps you should read the link I sent. You are writing a news article nothing more. We are not journalists. see also WikiNews. You are writing about the reactions and such as if you are reporting the news. That isn't allowed per my understanding of the policies. If perhaps you can show me an the policy that allows the entry I'd be happy to reconsider. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats precisly my reasoning in NOT having the article on the attacks yet. Right now it's only reactions we don't know anything, I think it best to wait and see if it has an impact and how.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has already united supporters and critics alike. --candle•wicke 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm not suggesting it isn't sad just that thios is a news article and based on peoples opinions nothing more. It's a newspaper article not in anyway encyclopeadic. I'm sorry and do not mean to disparage your work but this is how ZI feel and understand Wiki policies.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I respect your opinion. However, my view is that this is being reported around the world (as is typical of these shootings), has drawn commentary from all sides, killed and wounded enough people to compare to other articles Wikipedia has... I just hadn't the time to develop it before you nominated it. I had already nominated it for the Main Page so it may even appear there in future. --candle•wicke 14:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_Withdraw Nom. While I still conside unencylopeadic and anews article this is clearly a wp:snow case. I stand by my point that Wiki is not a news site and article is un-needed at this point. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:04, 2 August 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 Speedily deleted per WP:A7. TNXMan 13:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblesnippets.com

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

Non-notable web site. I am almost tempted to speedy. Gordonrox24 | Talk 13:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Csd shoiuld gpo through for spam or non notable site. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:18, 2 August 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 Memorial Stadium (Bristol). JForget 00:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial ground

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

Non-notable pitch used by a local amateur club. PROD denied by author. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to establish notability and has no sources. Additionally, the article's title is quite generic. Noir (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birrong Girls High School

edit
Birrong Girls High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

way too short and no references Extremepro (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 16:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable school. oppose redirect to Birrong the suburb as someone can just type Birrong. LibStar (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced and no indications it is notable (and NO, schools are NOT automatically notable and no guideline or policy says they are automatically notable). TJ Spyke 16:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - high school for which sources are available. Needs cleaning and expansion not deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced and no indication of notability. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment TerriersFan, if you are willing to find the sources and cite them, please feel free to do so. A search of Google News revealed 10 hits, of which most are of the "abc went to this school" variety, and a couple of news hits about minor events that happened at the school. Although a normal Google search returns over 2000 hits, most of them are either school directories, or not from reliable sites - I'd be interested to see which sources you have found that would show this school's notability. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All high schools are notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Eastmain, could you please give a reference to a wikipedia guideline or policy (not an essay, as these are neither policy nor guidelines) that says this? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment WP:CLUB states Non-commercial organizations: Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: 1)The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All high schools are considered notable at Wikipedia, precisely to avoid the problems of debating each one individually to weed out a few percent. Almost always sources can in fact be located with enough digging in local print sources--and, given Google News Archive, this will continue to get easier. This has been a stable compromise for over a year and a half now. (I was not too happy with it myself, because i tend to be deletionist for local institutions, but it works & avoids the previous dozen or so daily debates, almost all of which ended in keeps when the evidence was found) The only reason it isn't a formal guideline is because a few determined people can prevent the adoption of one because or our difficulty in defining what's need for consensus there. What we do is our guidelines as much as what we say. DGG (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Editor:DGG states high schools have been given some leniency as to the guidelines.--Buster7 (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. It is rare I ever agree with him anything in recent memory but I agree with him on this one thing. JBsupreme (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. High schools are presumed notable per established practice. ReverendWayne (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The argument put forward by DGG is, of course, just a fancy way of saying "What about X?". Instead of making a case about why other schools may be notable, this discussion would be better focused on reasons why this school may be notable. This may include actually citing policy and guidelines (and not actually pretending it doesn't exist if it is inconvenient) -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per DGG. Long-established precedent is that all secondary schools are notable for the reasons he lists. Edward321 (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment long-established precedent surely isn't a sound basis? We've done this before, let's continue doing it isn't really a policy or a guideline, is it? Personally, I feel that if all high schools are to be automatically counted as notable, for example, because a search of local papers would find sources we could use, then (1) this should be made explicit wikipedia policy - we should have a vote on this somewhere and finalise it. (2) couldn't the same argument be made for all primary/elementary schools, colleges, universities? So perhaps we should have a policy that states that all educational establishments are always counted as notable, no matter where they are, how they are licenced, how many students they have, etc. I'm not being flippant here - every other organisation on wikipedia has to have reliable sources - why should schools be treated any differently. Part of the notability for a school (whether primary or higher) should surely be that it either offers something different to the average school, or has a few notable alumni (who would have articles on here). Where would we start a formal discussion on the adoption (or otherwise) of school notability being automatic? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Postscript Incidently, people argue that local sources might be able to verify a high school's notability - two comments on that: (1) The same argument could be used for college athletes who otherwise are non-notable; small companies that we would count as non-notable, etc - why should schools have a lower standard of notability? (2) If in a high school article, I saw citations coming from a local newspaper (e.g. "The Birrong Times, 20 April 2009 edition, page 6 Birrong Girl's High School Wins National Competition), I'd accept those - I can't check those out, but others could.
    • (cont) I don't know how many high schools there are in the world (and on the same logic, we'd need to include elementary schools, surely) but on wikipedia, most of them would just be a one line article saying "abc is a high school in xyz." - we wouldn't accept this level of article for a company, a person, a work of fiction, etc... why should schools be treated differently? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • RFC - I have started a policy RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Request_for_comments:_Notability_of_high_schools, if people would like to make comments - I've got to go out now, so I'll leave my comments later today when I get a chance -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't agree that schools are inherently notable. It might be common practice but that doesn't make it in line with published policy. Listed references are generally either self-published (by education department that the school is a branch of) or not substantially about the school - they are about an issue.Garrie 14:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment.... The founder of wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, is an inclusionist. Quotes:
    • School articles "if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accommodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world. Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website. Then I think people should relax and accommodate me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do." (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008266.html Partial solution to rampant deletionism] WikiEN-l, Jimmy Wales)...--Buster7 (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per general consensus that High schools are notable, and there are some refs within the article too. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 18:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Berry Hill, Texas

edit
AfDs for this article:
Blue Berry Hill, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blueberry Hill is not a "community" in any sense of the word. All of the other CDPs listed in Bee County have post offices, fire departments etc. and are organized communities. Blueberry Hill is a small subdivision with absolutely no services or organization of it's own. It is part of Beeville and should be considered such. The article should be deleted. Vandersontx 11:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Theatre Season, Monaco

edit
British Theatre Season, Monaco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet notability guidelines. It appears this was a one off event Mark E (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Needs a good reason to be notable if it was a one-off event. Can't see any here. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had serious problems with this article a year ago, and nothin has improved since. Lacks all notability, and has even no indicarion of gaining any in the future, since there is no evidence of any future for it (this also wouldn't be sufficient, but it would at least be something...). Fram (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE Wiki is an encyclopaedia. This event happened and gained serious local recognition as the 1st British Theatre Season to happen in Monaco, lasting for 8 weeks and the 1st company to receive the High Patronage of HSH Prince Albert in its first year of operation - but this info kept being removed by someone who also did not personally like any reference to honorific titles, which seemed to me to be a personal choice, not for the benefit or illumination of Wiki users. It is therefore worthy of retention as a piece of historic information and for its cultural significance in an interview with the producer of the Season on Radio Monte Carlo on 5 July 2009, it was announced that the Season was returning in 2010. Captainclegg (talk) 19:00, 3 August 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. Views about equally split, with no policy coming through one way or another. Enough debate has taken place so no need to relist at this time. Nja247 10:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Batman: The Brave and the Bold

edit
List of characters in Batman: The Brave and the Bold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fancruft directory of characters that appear in the cartoon series, primarily reliant on summary of episode plot. There's nothing to establish that these appearances or character variations are notable in of themselves, and its only out-of-universe content (naming the actors who voice the characters) is in a way redundant to the purpose of the far more concise Cast list in the main article. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:06, 2 August 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. At first glance, this would appear to be a keep closure. However, some of the keep rationales are using OTHERSTUFF arguments, and as such, I have given little weight. Despite these, it's not enough to be a delete closure, so it's a no consensus. (X! · talk)  · @175  ·  03:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of vineyards and wineries

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of vineyards and wineries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Main issues are WP is not a directory and verifiability. Inclusion criteria is unstated and thus it will never be complete or maintainable. This list will forever be skewed geographically towards whoever puts the most time into it giving the reader a biased impression of where most vineyards are. –Moondyne 09:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. This article clearly passes WP:STAND (esp. clear inclusion criteria and usefulness) and does not break policy according to WP:NOTDIR, as it is not a business directory as such and is not a loose association of articles. That it may not be finished, and that it may be biased is a risk for every wikipedia article, and certainly not grounds for deletion. This argument has been had before - see the first AfD discussion. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say that it was impossible to state the inclusion criteria, but that it was impossible for the article to ever be be complete without such criteria. Apologies if that was unclear. You're saying that the criteria is stated and from that I can only deduce that any and every vineyard and winery on the planet is eligible for inclusion in this list. Is that what you're saying? How would one verify every such item? My father-in-law has a few vines and bottles his own for family and friends. He describes this micro-operation as a winery. Should I add it to the list? –Moondyne 11:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I see what you mean. The best thing then would be to add criteria. I raise the issue of whether it's impossible or not because this is an AfD discussion. If the article is salvageable, then it shouldn't be deleted, but rather improved. I think we can both agree that criteria can easily be established. I've put a message on the food and drink project talk page asking for help.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. —Bduke (Discussion) 11:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apart from bluelinks I think it's reasonable to expect the other listings to be made verifiable by a citation to a reliable source. The purpose of this AfD seems to be addressing an editing issue rather than whether the list article itself is worth keeping. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , adding "notable" to the title, and included only ones with Wikipedia articles--exactly as usual for all such lists. The necessary sourcing will be in the original article linked to. It is true that a complete list of all vineyards in the world would be unencyclopedic, so that is not what this should be. As CoM says, an editing problem. DGG (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with DGG. All links should be to vineyards that have WP articles. The very long list of Australian vineyards shows what would happen if that was done for all countries that produce wine. Note that pruning that list will need care. Most of the links that are not red links do not point to an article on the vineyard but to a town or something that has nothing to do with the vineyard. Just look at the first two under "Victoria" for a start. Earlier I looked at a block in the middle and they were all wrong too. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This argument is always coming up. We have lists and we have categories. They can serve different purposes. Some readers like lists and others like categories. In addition I have no objection, when we get this to reasonable bounds, to add a brief comment after every entry, e,g "Penfolds Vineyard: Famous for Grange Hermitage" or similar. The point above is that we should not be listing non-notable vineyards that will never have a WP entry. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nomination under WP:NOTDIR, in particular I draw everyone attention to item 7. A complete exposition of all possible details this article is specificallly defined as that. So what possible filter could we reasonably apply that would make this at least maintainable, notability? with a WP article we dont self reference, filter notability with a RS - every wine guide, wine book lists every winery in the region its writting about. Awards,medals, etc for their wines? Basically everyone of the Australian wineries listed meet basic notability, what this list compares to is a List of train stations with a criteria The following is a non-exhaustive list of train and subway stations from around the world...... smaller scope lists to support regions would be a more reasonable format. Gnangarra 08:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In all honesty, even as a member of WP:WINE, I really don't see the point or purpose of this article? Even with the word "notable" added to the title, this list of randomly selected wineries from across the globe would still be unmanageable and offer little (if any) value to the reader. What would offer value to the reader are well maintained, regionally specific categories like Category:Wineries of France, Category:Wineries in South Australia,Category:California wineries, etc. Eventually the Wine Project will be getting to that but till then, this article is still a poor, encyclopedically questionable substitution. AgneCheese/Wine 16:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is creeping into the grounds of WP:NOTDIR. I'm not convinced by the argument that it isn't a business listing as the vast majority of wineries are business ventures (for-profit). Tavix |  Talk  02:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No different from many, many other similar lists like List of bicycle manufacturing companies, List of airlines etc., etc. (none of which need "notable" in their title, so it should definitely not be added here) List does need major cleanup, though: many of the blue links point to articles that have nothing to do with wines or vines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination is the best expression I have ever seen of the deletionist mindset as "In order to save the village, we had to destroy it". God forbid that a reader looking for wineries should think there are more more wineries in Australia than there really are; let's get rid of the article, and then the reader looking for wineries will, um...not be bamboozled in this way.
Equally thoughtless is asserting 'management' problems and then offering the 'solution' of categorization. You want to categorize all the winery articles, you go right ahead. This article isn't stopping you. Anarchangel (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what is rather thoughtless is commentary on a field that one has little to no experience in actually "managing/maintaining" articles in. As a member of WP:WINE, my philosophies do not fall into "deletionist" or "inclusionist" but rather encyclopedist with the singular concern over whether or not this article makes Wikipedia a better wine resource for the reader. The answer to this is a resounding "no". Take a moment and try to conceptualize how a reader would find any encyclopedic use or value in this article. The title of this article is List of vineyards and wineries-so basically a feeble attempt at listing all (popularly estimated) 56,000 wineries in the world. What would a reader coming to this article actually be looking for? To confirm that Chateau SoandSo has an article? Well a quick search would take them to the actual winery article rather than to this article. Would it show where the winery is? Again, I would think the actual winery article would do a better job. What if the reader is interested in how knowing ALL the wineries in a particular wine region? Good luck trying to get that useful information from an article that will barely have any hope of being even 3% complete and accurate. Heck, even if they are only interested in knowing what wineries have Wikipedia articles, it is far more likely that a region specific category is going to be more up to date and accurate then this article. So what encyclopedic value are we providing the customer? With this article, the answer is pretty much none. AgneCheese/Wine 16:38, 7 August 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kailin Gow

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is recommended that each article be nominated individually. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soap Opera "supercouples"

edit
AfDs for this article:

Delete. All of these articles are excessive WP:PLOT and have no WP:RS in order to show WP:N. Most of these characters have their own pages anyway, making these pages look a little WP:FANCRUFT-ish. Not one of these articles has an "Impact" or "Reception" section, meaning that they are purely WP:INUNIVERSE. Despite User:Flyer22 (who I have notified) posting invisible comments/talk page notices on some articles, stating that he was going to prove notability in summer 2007, nothing seems to have been done. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE CLOSING ADMIN that this is not a majority vote, as I expect an army of "fans" from WP:SOAPS to join in and vote due to WP:ILIKEIT. On a similar note, I do not want anybody to assume that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as I looked through and some articles were clearly notable - these were not. DJ 08:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All. Wow; the new bilateral-relations technique for maor articles. These *are* heaps of plot regurgitation without much pretense about being anything else. Nominator states the issue well; I concur. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: wikipedia is not a collection of WalMart check-out counter soap-booklets or mouthpiece of ET. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have not gotten around to fixing up those articles; been busy fixing up other lousy soap opera articles. As the nominator above says, most of those listed here do not yet establish notability. But I do point out that six of these articles do: Luke Spencer and Laura Webber are studied in a variety of academic sources, and are credited with creating the term Supercouple. Their article, despite being lousy, does provide significant notability. Deletion debates should not be for cleanup. A ton of notability can be added to that article; a simple Google search will even show, and Rocksey and I have already planned to fix it up. So nominating it for deletion boggles my mind, and I say "Keep" to Luke and Laura. Steve Andropoulos and Betsy Stewart's wedding attracted 20 million viewers, making it the second highest-rated hour in American soap opera history; that can likely be expanded upon. Frisco Jones and Felicia Cummings can be noted in television studies, and is noted in one soap opera criticism book as a study (which is in the article). John Black and Marlena Evans (which does have a reception section), Josh Lewis and Reva Shayne, and Holden Snyder and Lily Walsh are all noted by Entertainment Weekly. That is major outside press; it is not everyday that a soap opera couple gets attention from Entertainment Weekly. Those six articles can most definitely be expanded in a notable way for an encyclopedia. I cannot really argue against deletion for the other articles, however. If I can find notability for them one day, I will recreate them. And, oh...I am a "she," by the way, and there is not an army of "fans" from WP:SOAPS (not active ones, anyway). Flyer22 (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Luke and Laura; Delete others unless references are available. Good heavens, even I've heard of Luke and Laura, and I've never watched soaps. They are by far the most well-known "Supercouple". Powers T 12:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole lot of them. While the soap operas themselves are notable, I don't think any of these "supercouples" are. Most of the articles seem to consist mostly of tens of kilobytes of plot descriptions with no real-world notability. JIP | Talk 16:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. How are Luke and Laura not notable? Or any other soap opera supercouple who passes WP:Notability due to having significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources? Just because an article is not fixed up does not make it "not notable." Flyer22 (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Luke and Laura, notable outside the program. Delete the rest, not so. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I have removed the Luke and Laura article from the discussion. DJ 17:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*merge all to "List of characters of X" type articles. No reason the material can't be covered, but they don't need their own articles either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG - speedy close and renominate after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. These are better handled individually as some may have notability, but it is highly unlikely that anyone will take the time to research them individually, instead just voting on a general principle (as I myself did.) Those who dislike article on fiction will vote delete, those who like such articles will vote keep, and those who want compromise will vote merge. No actual discussion of the notability of the subjects will take place in this format. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you for being so honest about this, ThaddeusB. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and nominate individually. Every individual one of these has different factors--for one thing, they are in different series, and the importance of the series is a relevant factor. Second, the prominence of the couple's role will be different in each instance. An poorly considered and potentially disruptive nomination. I notice JM correctly associates it with the early bilateral relations nominations--a prime example of how not to do things, that caused extensive long-lasting ill-will and disruption. (They at least had the extenuating factor that they were recent robot-created articles, and the inappropriate response was explainable in part by the equally inappropriate manner of creation.) Thaddeus' suggestion of lists may be appropriate in some cases, but not all. Though I often suggest just this, it's in individual cases--in some of these, it may be a logical way to deal in combination with two major characters. I strongly urge the nominator to withdraw this and do it properly. I would hate to lose the convenient tool of joint nominations because of inappropriate use. DGG (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete As no objective rationale to distinguish "supercouples" is furnished, and as individual notable characters have articles, the need for these is non-existent. The current article Supercouple is rife with OR and I do not find in it a sufficient means of determining what is or is not a supercouple. On the basis of Flyer22's work on the Supercouples article, and a presumption that he will weed out the ones above which are iffy, I change to Keep Collect (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Collect (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I do not understand what you mean. The only objective rationale that needs to determine what a supercouple is, according to Wikipedia, is reliable sources stating the couples as supercouples. For these couples, the fictional ones at least, to have articles on Wikipedia, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources about the couples. Some soap opera supercouple articles on Wikipedia have that, the ones DJ spared (except one, though that is working out now). Individual notable characters having articles does not take away from whether the couple that character is a part of is also notable and should have its own article. Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer, for example, seem to be far more notable as a couple than as individual characters (though their couple article needs further fixing up). The Supercouple article is not rife with original research (OR), but is rather backed up by valid sources (though, admittedly, the article needs more work). It is nowhere near close to original research as, say, Superhero is. Flyer22 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note. Since this debate, Collect and I have talked over improvements for the Supercouple article. Collect's main problem with the article was/is that the term does not seem to be as clearly defined as a lot of other terms. I talked with Collect about that, and have very recently further improved the article and again (though not simply the Definition section, and even though the term is always going to be an entity of several elements and a little subjective). Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed you have worked hard on Supercouples, and (assuming you will delete the ones which are iffy on your own) I change my opinion. Collect (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • LOL, I am a "she," but it is okay, since I get called a "he" a lot on Wikipedia and have identified more with the male gender role and "male activities" since childhood. Yes, I propose that the supercouple articles that cannot be brought up to Wikipedia notability standards be deleted or redirected. Thank you for having faith in me and being a pleasure to work with. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per nomination. None of these articles are suitable for inclusion. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 18:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you have examined them all? You have checked for sources for each of them? What are your arguments for each one of them. You may be right, but it takes more than bald assertion. DGG (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and nominate individually per DGG. I'm not sure how many of these should be kept,and this mass deletion makes it next to impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff. AniMatedraw 20:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all A notable aspect of a notable work of fiction. The relationship of these couples, is what is featured on most episodes, and what they center around. It is the reason women keep watching these types of shows, they interested in relationships. Dream Focus 10:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERESTING fail. DJ 10:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say keep the article because it was interesting, I said that a key factor in the show, was the relationships. As such, this most important component of these series, deserves mention. Dream Focus 19:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and nominate individually per DGG. Its impossible to check each of these articles for notability in such a small space of time. Nominate a few every week or so and give people enough time to make an informed decision. Jeni (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It will be interesting if soap editors ever learn how to reference. There are weekly soap magazines that have been running for years, dissecting this stuff down to the nth degree. There are probably enough sources out their for thousands of soap articles. Supercouples who are actually mentioned on google news (like a lot of these are) will be the least of the deletionists worries. We could have articles on fictional babies with 20 refs each. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL Thanks for showing how little you know of "soap editors." Believe it or not, but some do you know how to reference. Rocksey (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you one? Have you found a way to search those mags online? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL. Yes, Rocksey is one. I am one as well. Rocksey has created articles such as Dimitri Marick, Dimitri Marick and Erica Kane, and contributed heavily to the Erica Kane article (as well as other soap opera-related articles). She did not technically create the Dimitri Marick article, but she significantly improved it and got it to GA status. I have also contributed heavily to a lot of soap opera-related articles (though that is not my only field on Wikipedia). But most "soap opera editors" here do not source, as you say; they are not like Rocksey, TAnthony, AniMate and I (or Gungadin and Trampikey). We are a rare and small bunch, and we are getting to all these crappy soap opera articles when we can. Patience is needed. Yes, I slacked off in not fixing up all those other soap opera supercouple articles. But I have been busy with other stuff, especially off Wikipedia...and just look at those articles; it is going to take a lot of work, and they were all on my shoulders (most likely still are, which is why I am not against deletion of some of them until I or someone else cares enough to properly recreate them). I am not sure how notable soap opera babies would be, though, LOL, no matter 20 references (unless from reliable third-party sources focusing on those babies). Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and renominate individually. Edward321 (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Kennedy and Susan Smith I believe that this article should be deleted. The reason being both characters already have their own pages and the supercouple page is really just repeating what is already on these pages. --5 albert square (talk) 14:06, 9 August 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 closed and both redirected to Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud per original author's request. R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic Load Balancing

edit
Elastic Load Balancing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Also nominating:

Elastic IP address (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both are one-sentence entries that do not explain the topic in the title. They are also promotion for Amazon web services. These seem like clear Speedy Delete A1 cases, but they were both declined. Possible G11 speedy as well. Hairhorn (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't work for Amazon nor promote them, I created these because they didn't exist but where linked to. If it was advertising I would have put more content and/or opinions about their service. --Abc518 (talk) 16:36, 2 August 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. Equally split views, with no particular side coming out with a strong policy reason one way or another. Enough debate has taken place so no reason to relist for now. Nja247 10:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disney animated feature film source material

edit
Disney animated feature film source material (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing but a list of links with some OR guestimates. Fails WP:N, WP:Lists and seems pretty redundant to existing lists like List of fiction works made into feature films -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, and Improve. I would so want to delete the article, as I completely agree with you. However, in the interest of trying to save articles that could provide value, I suggest it be renamed to List of Disney animated source material and all reasonably well-known items kept. The obvious OR items can be purged, but the classic film material is fairly well-documented as to what the original sources were. From there, we just need to be more diligent in keeping the cruft off the page. SpikeJones (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article on each film should contain the information on its source material. An article on the Disney films as a whole should also discuss the various types of sources used. I don't see a reason to put a list together of this aspect of each film, besides which most are obvious from the titles. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Sources obviously exist, and list could conceivably be useful. Should definitely be renamed to a list, and heavily tagged as needing citations. Purge OR and cruft as necessary. Noisalt (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' - Agree with Noisalt. Although each film article could and should discuss sources, having all the sources in one list is beneficial for users, so they do not have to look up each individual article. And while an article on the Disney films as a whole should also discuss the various types of sources used, there is much more to discuss in such an article, so this information would not be as accessible, or may be eliminated to save space. This is not to say the article doesn't need improvement, but needing improvement is not a reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Northwestgnome. This information really belongs in the individual articles, otherwise you lose essential context. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a useful alternative organization, and there is no reason why this information can't be both here and in the individual articles. The source material for Disney films is a very frequent subject in reliable sources, especially those that are based on real incidents. Obviously significant cleanup of OR is required. Powers T 13:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Northwestgnome.75.142.54.211 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 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. Nja247 10:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases

edit
Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article duplicates material already presented in other articles; material in this article is too detailed; Wikipedia is not a police blotter Richard (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for deleting this article

Article was created by User:ADM in an attempt to move excessive detail out of Catholic sex abuse cases. ADM moved material to this article and then deleted it from Catholic sex abuse cases. User:Kasaalan subsequently reverted the deletion from Catholic sex abuse cases thus creating a content fork in which the same material is presented both in this article and in Catholic sex abuse cases. Kasaalan felt that the wholesale deletion from Catholic sex abuse cases was too radical. I kind of agree with Kasaalan on this although we disagree on how much material should be kept in Catholic sex abuse cases and how much should be moved to subsidiary articles.

In addition, ADM may not have been aware of the article titled Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country which includes most of this material.

Moreover, there are articles about the sexual abuse scandal in specific countries. These are:

The material in this article is primarily in Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States but any details cases outside the U.S. could be handled in Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country or in one of the above country articles.

Also, consider the existence of these articles about the sexual abuse scandal in specific dioceses:

In a nutshell, there is a hierarchical structure of articles with Catholic sex abuse cases at the top and then descending to the country and diocese level. All the material in this article could be moved to one or more of the articles in this hierarchy.

I also am skeptical that a reader would want to focus specifically on "Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases" outside the context of the sexual abuse scandal either as a whole or in a specific country or diocese.

To me, this article winds up being a more or less arbitrary collection of information that does not provide the appropriate context for the reader.

Even if this article is deleted, there will still be more cleanup work to do on the main article (Catholic sex abuse cases) and its subsidiary articles. Deleting this article is just the first step in the cleanup process.

--Richard (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I strongly disagree with that. The Catholic sex abuse cases article is way too large and should be scrapped by at least 90 %. The rest ought to be put in those other entries. There is a good reason for the category on the subject, it makes the avaiblable content much more readable. The current entry is not easily readable and looks a lot like a thrashy notebook. ADM (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Agree. Sturunner (talk) 19:00, 2 August 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 deleted A1, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom the Pissed Off Roofer

edit
Tom the Pissed Off Roofer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Basically nonsense, article with same name as user, no sign of notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 04:20, 2 August 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 Kwantlen Polytechnic University. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kwantlen Student Association

edit
Kwantlen Student Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable student organization of non-major university Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you misunderstood what I meant by major-this means one well known outside of its geographic locale, say, like McGill or Todai or UCLA. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but.... please don't kid yourself. How many graduate programs does Kwantlen have? Zero. It's certainly not a major Canadian university. Even calling it a "university" is stretching it. Hairhorn (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The school itself is likely not notable, as it has very limited degree-granting programs (it barely qualifies as a University). The student association is certain not to be notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ogorgeous

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

Non notable product. Article also makes claims that do not meet WP:CRYSTALBALL Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:43, 2 August 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 I Am… Sasha Fierce. JForget 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken-Hearted Girl

edit
Broken-Hearted Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources to support this being a planned single of any kind. Charted as an album track at position 194 on one chart, which I don't think qualifies as a "charted" song for purposes of WP:NSONGS. No cover versions, and, while the article looks big, it's essentially unsourced WP:OR. —Kww(talk) 03:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After further research, not even the 194 position can be verified. Based on that, I would describe the song as uncharted.—Kww(talk) 18:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The chart position can be verified, but it isn't easy to find the information. I agree that it should be considered as uncharted, as British Hit Singles & Albums and The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles only include the top 75. snigbrook (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Originally, the song was the sixth single, but there are no sources for the song being the seventh single or if it's going to be a single at all. The 194 chart position is very unnecessary for a complete article. The article lacks many sources and seems to be an open article for show. I say delete it and we'll see what happens. Charmed36 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The song should stay as there is a music video and an album cover and that the article does say it is the 7th single with may be true for that she released 2 sasha firce, normally she will release one of every cd but this time 2 of one so it is kind of oveous to know that may be she will release 2 i am and make them the the last 2 singles for the album. plus even though the song wasn't released thier is still a possiblity that she will re-release it for if she isn't then she would have never posted the video that was made or made the single cover. yeah their is little sources but if it does become the 7th their will be more info and refercnes to be noted. The chart listing will change if it is released but until then that is the only thing so far. the article should not be deleted as there is the possiblity of it being released and the video and cover is real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladgy (talk • contribs) 07:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cover is fake. Anyone can tell. Charmed36 (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Charmed36 you can't tell if it is a fake and it dosen't really matter if it is or not, because if its not she will make an offical one for if it is released, and if is well then it is proof that its possibly the the next single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladgy (talk • contribs) 08:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beyonceformen - broken hearted girl i think it should because it has an video and its sounds like it woulod be a single and she will release this it just was pushed back because she want it sweet dreams first so this should stay up.

Just because it "sounds like it would be a single", does not mean it will be a single. PopMusicBuff talk 18:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ospina & Oscar P Club Remix for beyonces broken-hearted girl and some info here - Beyonce will release “Broken-Hearted Girl” as her third single from the “I Am…” this is a copy form the source http://www.ifuseekmusic.com/2009/04/broken-hearted-girl-remixed-for-the-first-time/ but the artwork on this one is fake un like the one on the page possibly. plus the source of the artwork on the page is here http://moremusicmayhem.blogspot.com/2009/06/broken-hearted-girl-sneak-peek.html so there are some refernces which will be added to the site. the page should be kept.Ladgy (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blogs are not suitable sources for album/single artworkd and neither is the website you have given to confirm single release. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note: I have seen mention of Broken-Hearted Girl being the single behind the Platinum Edition re-release on beyonce's official italian website. These does clearly state it.

"Il singolo di traino della Platinum Edition di "I Am..Sasha Fierce" sarà Broken-Hearted Girl (canzone presente anche in entrambe le versioni di "I AM..Sasha Fierce" attualmente in vendita) che potrete ascoltare in radio da Settembre."

It says it's going to impact radio in september RatiziOne 20:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just heared this song and its alright, just like halo and if i were a boy it has that i am sound wwhich is why i believe it the page should stay i mean i could be like the italian single like that guy said before and just because it was canceled that doesn't mean it won't be released. Keep the page!!!!!!Beomama (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC) — Beomama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Beyonceformen - this should stay up broken hearted girl is an single she says it on extra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladgy (talk • contribs) 07:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Regardless of whether or not it was confirmed as a single, WP:NSONG says:
"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."
So, first of all, the fact that it may or may have not been confirmed as a single (I do not understand the language in that reference) does not grant it notability for an article. Secondly, there is hardly any verifiable content in the page, which is a violation of WP:GNG. Which is why this needs to be redirected to I Am... Sasha Fierce until the song establishes its notability. POKERdance talk/contribs 00:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Ayala

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

DELETE. This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E and besides that she just really isn't all that notable (at all). JBsupreme (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Lola

edit
Hey! Lola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible hoax. Show not listed a the Nickelodeon Website. Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:34, 2 August 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 speedily deleted (G12) by Nja247. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson's WaterSeal

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

looks to me like an advertisement, created by User:Tws2009 which seems to be a WP:SPA. no sources, hasn't been edited in a couple days despite the {{construction}} tag. ZS 02:10, 2 August 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. Four deletes with nom, two keeps. Policy guidelines favour the majority of the views expressed, ie to delete as notability of film doesn't extend to this actor. Nja247 10:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Curtis (actor)

edit
Simon Curtis (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable actor. A few bit parts on TV. Prod declined, saying "He starred in the movie Spectacular!. And he also appeared in a television series." But a quick check shows this is a TV movie. Not yet notable, perhaps in the future. Hairhorn (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The (TV) film he starred in was notable, it got 3.7 million viewers and was instantly a hit. He then continued his career, appearing in an episode of Hannah Montana. He is a notable actor who just started his career. And his career may grow, so he DOES deserve his own article. GreenBayPackersfan09 (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the film may be notable, but that doesn't make its cast notable. One swallow does not make a spring. (WP:ENT asks for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". In my book, one quasi-lead in a TV movie and a single guest role in an episode doesn't cut it. His career may well grow. Equally, he may instantly fade into obscurity. If his career grows, and people start writing about how great he is, then he'll qualify. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Simon Curtis has only had one major role and one minor role. Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete highly trivial in nature. JBsupreme (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what you have said is true, but only to an extent. He hasent been in much, Yet, but that dosent mean he wont get to some level of fame in the future. I know for a fact that he is quite well known on blog sites and various indie pop music sites. He has a downloadable album and has been in various stage produtions growing up in Tulsa, Oklahoma where he was born and rasied not Canada, like the page says. I think people want to know about him and even if its only a small amount of people, I think he should have a page on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Millaa Mercer (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)— Millaa Mercer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"... that dosent mean he wont get to some level of fame in the future". That doesn't mean he deserves an article right now. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy keep. Wrong venue. Redirect currently being discussed at WP:RFD (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological Site of Great Importance

edit
Archaeological Site of Great Importance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This redirect appears to be unnecessary as if other artciles are created with titles such as Archaeological Site of Great Importance (USA) there is great potential for confusion. Originally prodded, but I was informed that that is not appropriate for a redirect. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Morgan

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

Non-notable pastor. BJTalk 19:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is a published author, his books are sold in major retailers such as target[[25]], amazon[[26]] and barnes and noble[[27]].While there is not a lot of newspaper coverage his name is fairly splattered all over the religous sites. that seems to be 3 of 5 of those articles under wp:authorHell In A Bucket (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While being available at B&N or Amazon doesn't make someone notable to me, selling pretty well on them does point that way. All 3 books rank reasonable well on Amazon, including the book Simply Strategic Volunteers, which ranks in the top 50 in 3 different categories on Amazon. So I'm going to lean towards the keep. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"his name is fairly splattered all over the religous sites" if it reasonably depicts his coverage. Selling well doesn't provide information for an article even if it suggests he is notable- what can you put in the article except that he sells so many books if you need sources from which to derive content? Unless you want to label all the religious sites frivolous or irrelevant, it would seem they are reliable sources about themselves if they have more editorial oversight than a blog and more than a few readers would suggest notable. Is there a specific wiki policy that says CNN has to mention them or even an essay on frivolous mention/sites? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:37, 2 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_2&oldid=1142645707"