Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 30

< 29 June	1 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funnel Dog

Contested prod. Non-notable dish, available at only two restaurants, invented last summer. No prejudice against recreation once it catches on, but for the time being, Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article meets the Wikipedia Notability guidelines. The verifiable source (Wild Rivers Waterpark) main website has listed this as a premier item on the 2009 menu and is heavily advertising it as a new, exclusive food product. This is more than just a trivial mention and is not the main topic of the source material. This material is produced independent of the subject. Cwsocha -timed 00:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The company that sells them is not a sufficient source to show notability, which requires 3rd-party sources. What's needed are substantial mentions in newspapers or magazines. Will Beback talk 00:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to establish notably for product. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find reliable, independent sources for the current content of the article, so I'm saying that it fails WP:N. The name "funnel dog" antedates the product treated in this article by at least a year, although that version seems to be somewhat different from what's described in the article. However, a similar, and identically named, product was being sold at a minor-league baseball park in Arkansas at the time of its putative invention in California. If an article can be written that treats the existence and development of this (rather icky sounding) comestible with appropriate citations, it may be admissible; but in the absence of independent sourcing and encyclopedic treatment, the article is best dispensed with at this time. Deor (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no reliable coverage about this particular creation known as a funnel dog. There's this and this but there are about different producst although similar in concept. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 6 July 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. (X! · talk) · @275 · 05:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jiverly Antares Wong

Delete. This is clearly WP:BIO1E. The subject is known for nothing other than the Binghamton shootings, where his role is covered comprehensively. WWGB (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly not in violation of WP:BIO1E. The subject is known only for the Binghamton shootings but that is clearly a substantial event being that he ranks 9th of all time on the List of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims. I don't see how his information was not put on its own page in the first place. Charles Whitman on the other hand was only involved in one event and the link for University of Texas at Austin massacre on the School shooting page goes directly to Charles Whitman's site. Msimpson607(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep a mass murderer of this magnitude is notable."If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. " DGG (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Binghamton shootings with the appropriate redirect. It's been awhile since I've seen the "one event" argument, and it's important to remember that that's an essay, not policy. DGG is correct in saying that it depends on what the one event was. Thus, nobody would seriously argue that Chesley Sullenberger shouldn't have an article under BIO-1E, and nobody would seriously say, "Well, he has to save another airliner full of people". On the other hand, as Msimpson notes, Charles Whitman, who has had a wealth of material written about him, doesn't have an article all of his own. Although mass shooting incidents are indisputably notable, the amount of attention given by the media to a perpetrator varies. Most are forgotten within a month after the incident, and that's the case with Mr. Wong. Mandsford (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat disingenuous to refer to WP:BIO1E as an "essay" when it is actually a guideline. WWGB (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, WWGB. Both WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E make clear that we don't simply bar an article about a person just because they were famous for one event. I think that people tend to rely on it as a strict rule, when in reality, it leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation. Quoting from BIO1E: "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." The examples cited are Gavrilo Princip (whose assassination of Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary led to the First World War) as a notable "one event" person, and George Holliday as a one-event person who was not notable enough for his own article. I had forgotten George Holliday's name, if I had ever remembered it at all. He redirects to Rodney King, whose beating Holliday caught on videotape, and although that led to the 1992 Los Angeles riots sparked by the acquittal of the officers who wouldn't have been on trial in the first place but for the videotape, Holliday remains a footnote, never known well enough even to be the answer to a trivia question. The general rule is that a person known only for one event is can be mentioned in the article about the event, and that in some cases where the person has been the subject of interest thereafter (think Lee Harvey Oswald), they merit an article of their own. Again, I'm not satisfied that Jiverly Wong will be any more remembered than Wesley Neal Higdon, Michael McClendon, Sulejman Talović, or some of the other persons who have been behind a massacre. Does anyone here remember Robert Kenneth Stewart? Probably not, even though he killed 8 people three months ago. Notable as the event itself was, there is no interest in Robert Kenneth Stewart. My feeling is that anyone interested in Jiverly Wong can read about him or write about him in the article about the event. When you we change policy to have individual articles about the people whom he killed, then you can tell me that he deserves a page of his own. Mandsford (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the information from two articles are to be merged into one article it only makes sense to put the information from the Binghamton shootings site that pertains to Jiverly Wong on the Jiverly Antares Wong page. I myself am from Upstate New York and I have family in Binghamton, New York. Trust me when I say that it will not be forgotten soon. In time the information about Jiverly Antares Wong will greater and even at the present time the amount of information is enough to warrant its own page. Msimpson607(talk) 13:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference can also be made to Port Arthur massacre in Australia. The killer in this incident was Martin Bryant who also has his own page not combined with the massacre page. The Binghamton shootings are still very recent and more information will be gathered over time.Msimpson607(talk) 14:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And "still very recent" is the problem. See Robert Kenneth Stewart, above. Martin Bryant's "martin bryant" tasmania&ned=us&hl=en&sa=N&tab=np| infamy would be easily demonstrated. Mandsford (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Binghamton shootings I'm sorry, but this is the same argument I used at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Markoff(2nd nomination). The media will always make a big deal out of these events, and he is hardly the Zodiac killer. There is not enough evidence of lasting notabilty to ease by WP:BLP concerns. I know WP:BLP1E isn't a hard and fast rule, otherwise Neil Armstrong could be deleted, but this is not enough persistent coverage to qualify an article. "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." As for the about not about Martin Bryant's article, firstly WP:OTHERSTUFF and secondly, massacres in Australia are a big deal, and this event had the lasting effect of leading to the biggest gun law changes in Australian history. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:54, 7 July 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) · @275 · 05:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vroomanton

Contested prod and declined speedy. Clearly has no notability for this subject. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources are indicating it was a population, even with its own post office and general store. [1][2]--Oakshade (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this exists only because the article's proper title, Vroomanton, Ontario, was redirected as an unsourced stub to the municipality that it's located in; whenever that happens, the creator (who seems to only create poorly-referenced stubs about ghost towns) has an irritating habit of subsequently recreating the same article again at an alternate title. While a properly referenced article about a ghost town is certainly acceptable, an unreferenced stub is not — the standing policy at WP:CANSTYLE is that communities, ghost or otherwise, which are within the boundaries of incorporated municipalities are to exist only as redirects, not as separate articles, until such time as a properly-referenced and reasonably detailed article — a one-line "Vroomanton is a ghost town" doesn't cut it — can be created about the community as a distinct topic. Although that rule isn't without controversy, it's pretty much exclusively the "everything that exists should have an article, legitimate references or not" crowd that take issue with it, not the people who are familiar with Wikipedia policy around verifiability and reliable sources. Move to Vroomanton, Ontario if expanded and sourced by close; redirect to Brock, Ontario if not. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a prime case study of how merging to another article will prevent the wiki process, as described in editing policy, from getting encyclopedic information into Wikipedia. What if an editor wants to add coordinates to the article? Do we want Brock, Ontario to have this sentence:

Smaller communities in the township include Ball Subdivision, Blackwater, Cedar Beach, Creightons Corners, Derryville, Gamebridge, Layton, Maple Beach, Pinedale, Saginaw, Sunderland, Thorah Beach, Vallentyne, Vroomanton (44°16′23″N 79°7′25″W / 44.27306°N 79.12361°W / 44.27306; -79.12361), Wick and Wilfrid?

I can't imagine that any editor would be happy about disfiguring Brock's article in this way, and this wouldn't be considered to be enough for a standalone article by those who are arguing here for deletion, so that edit probably won't get done. And what if another editor wants to add some information about the local Catholic church? Should they edt that sentence to say:

Smaller communities in the township include Ball Subdivision, Blackwater, Cedar Beach, Creightons Corners, Derryville, Gamebridge, Layton, Maple Beach, Pinedale, Saginaw, Sunderland, Thorah Beach, Vallentyne, Vroomanton (site of St. Malachy's Catholic Church^[1] founded by Father John Lee in 1857^[2]), Wick and Wilfrid?

Again, that's unlikely to be accepted as enough by those who object to separate articles, and unbalances the Brock article, so that information won't be added anywhere in Wikipedia. The same will apply to an editor who tries to add a snippet of information about the Methodist Church or the influence of the railroad or the reason why the town was abandoned. All of this information is available from reliable sources about Vroomanton, and absolutely relevant to a comprehensive non-paper encyclopedia, but if we insist on not having separate articles it will never get into Wikipedia. And then we come to the arguments about articles with just one or two facts in them not being encyclopedic. Have the people making these arguments ever read a print encyclopedia? I have one to hand, and have just opened it at random. I see an article whose whole content is:

Eccles 53 29N 2 21W A town in N England, in Greater Manchester on the Manchester Ship Canal. It manufactures machinery, textiles and chemicals. Eccles cakes originated here. Population (1973 est): 37 370.^[3]

This is perfectly typical of encyclopedia articles as they have been known over the centuries. I don't know where people have got the idea from that an encyclopedia consists only of long, detailed decriptions of a subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Sadlier's Catholic almanac and ordo for the year of our Lord 1866. D. & J. Sadlier. 1866. p. 24. OCLC 191323364.
^ Teefy, John R. (1892). Jubilee Volume 1842-1892: The Archdiocese of Toronto and Archbishop Walsh. G.T. Dixon. p. 313. OCLC 71836934.
^ The Macmillan Encyclopedia. Macmillan London Limited. 1981. p. 392. ISBN 0333291344.

Wikipedia does not have a requirement to allow unsourced stubs to stand permanently on their own on the basis that their content might be expandable and referenceable. We evaluate articles as they are, not as we might wish them to be in an ideal world. Nobody, least of all me, is saying that we can't have a separate article about Vroomanton if a proper article about the topic is created. But it most certainly is not entitled to an unreferenced article. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's with this word entitled that people keep using in AfD discussions? Articles don't exist in Wikipedia for the benefit of subjects that may or may not be "entitled" to them, and the whole concept of a ghost town being "entitled" to anything is obviously ridiculous. The people with entitlement are our readers, who are "entitled" to be able to find information about the subjects that they are looking for without wading through articles about something that they didn't ask for - such as readers who want to go straight to the information that we have about Vroomanton, and then, via links, find out about the surrounding area. This article has sources, described as external links, which you may or may not consider reliable, but I have demonstrated above that several cast-iron reliable sources exist to verify information that could be put into this article, but would not be relevant to the article about Brock. Can you demonstrate how, if we are to keep this as one word in one sentence in an article about the larger area, our editing process will ever lead to our readers getting the information about Vroomanton that they are "entitled" to? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have an obligation to provide anything except properly sourced, good quality articles. The reader's "entitlement" to information about a topic is not so pressing that we have any requirement to keep an unreferenced stub forever just because somebody might eventually come along and improve it. I'll quite happily rescind my delete if the article actually sees some improvement before close — if you've got such cast-iron reliable sources handy, then it really shouldn't be a problem to, like, y'know, actually add them to the article today — but until that actually happens, we have to look at the existing quality of the article as it stands right now. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourced stub for a real (now former) place. Part of first of the 5 pillars is being a Gazetteer; deletion of this is counter to that as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pillars say that Wikipedia incorporates elements of gazetteers, not that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. And the sources need to be in the article before we can say that the article is sourced — as currently written, it isn't sourced at all. Bearcat (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lots of sources for this place and so the topic is clearly notable. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out more than once, the fact that sources are possible for a topic is irrelevant to the discussion if those sources are not actually physically in the article now. If just one person would take five lousy minutes to add some real sources to the article, there'd be no problem — but nobody's doing that. Instead everybody keeps mentioning all those wonderful keep-worthy sources here instead of actually doing anything with them there. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 5 July 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} 04:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time To Rock

NN song. Article itself states that it fails the Music Notability guidelines. →ROUX ₪ 22:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this quote from the article: "the song was never on the music charts, but the single was released". Fails WP:MUSIC. -T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 22:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, T'Shael has it right. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 02:33, 1 July 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taysha Smith Valez

Article is about a phenomenally rich young black woman that lacks any sort of coverage in reliable sources, and as such, fails notability. Sources provided in the article are two press releases and a link to Amazon search results listing her books. All the books are published by H. Couture which is her company and so are self-published. A search for coverage about her turns up little other than press releases. Whpq (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some what skeptical about the information presented in the article. The online searches show many recent entires that look promotional. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Indeed, the claim to being the youngest self-made billionaire seems overblown given that her book that she wrote is about being a millionaire. And according to this news item, Mark Zuckerberg holds that distinction. A severe lack of any coverage for somebody of such accomplishment is not credible. There would be coverage about her business(es) that created this wealth. Yet there is none. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article makes a claim to be the youngest self-made billionaire. This is an assertion of notability, but unsourced, and was removed from the article. Also see my comment above which indicates that the claim is not credible. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After trying to find some reliable sources on Valez, I find myself becoming more and more convinced that she is just a serial self-promoter. The link to the site for H Couture Beauty, the company that supposedly made her a "billionairess" is dead. Tayshasmithvalez.com is a site that criticizes her. And every link I can find her in my searches is promotional (mainly press releases) or unreliable (blogs, twitter feed). Dawn Bard (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 21:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These books appear to be self published, for all intents, and having a lot of money doesn't make you notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I agree with Dawn Bard. There are a lot of these self-promoting articles. Tree Karma (talk) 03:05, 2 July 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} 04:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Barfly Mini-Tour

NN music tour. Lasted 5 days, no evidence of significant media coverage. →ROUX ₪ 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 02:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete easily non-notable. Tavix | Talk 18:11, 5 July 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} 04:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Pi Sigma

Fraternity at just one or two universities. No claim of meeting WP:Notability in article. Gsearch coming up with lots of hits, but most are for the Pi Sigma chapter of Phi Beta Kappa -- notability not found for this fraternity. Prodded, but missed that the article had previously been deleted via prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, the prior version deleted via prod had nothing to do with the current one, except sharing the same name.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fraternities of this small extent are notable only under extraordinary circumstances, and none seem to be the case here. DGG (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CLUB. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Not of note what-so-ever. Trevor Marron (talk) 15:33, 4 July 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) · @277 · 05:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian National Party

No notability, no representation. Brand new splinter party. Only regional, very limited importance. Candidating at 2 provincial elections, with 0.2% votes only (see article in it.wiki - remark that Italy has more than 100 provinces). The english name of the party seems to be completely invented. AfD in it.wiki with a great majority for deletion (= 1) Invitamia (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As it.Wiki is almost an unreliable source, I don't see how a deletion there can be a reason for deleting an article in en.Wiki. The party is notable, although small and young. I think that Wikipedia should cover all these small parties. --Checco (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am concerned about the reasons mentioned to delete this article. The party is small simply because is new and presented its lists for the first time at local admiministrative elections, but already announced for next year to be present also at regional general elections. Regarding then the English name of the party it is merely the literary translation from Venetian and Italian, so it is not correct to say it is invented. Final consideration, but the most important in my opinion: this new political movement expresses new ideas emerging from the Venetian society and it is remarkable and important not to neglect this, deletion may appear as a sort of censorship and is not according with respect of freedoom of expression. --Tbusato (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. It contested elections, that's notable enough. —Nightstallion 08:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The party is small and young but is effective. --Xorxi (talk)
Keep. As it.Wiki is a really unreliable source, as usual for italian media system, I don't see how a deletion there can be a reason for deleting an article in en.Wiki. The party is notable, although small and young. I think that Wikipedia should cover all these small parties.--Gbusato (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC) — Gbusato (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. For the freedom of information keep it alive. --Stefand (Stefand) —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Yes, for the freedom of information keep it alive.--Gianegiane (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The keep arguments above seem to be very lacking in reliable souces, and the only two hits from Google News are forum posts. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. here are other reliable souces for keep arguments above:["la tribuna" di Treviso, 18/05/2008], ["Il Treviso, 18/05/2008], ["il mattino" di Padova, 20/07/2008], [Il Treviso, 15/05/2009], ["il mattino" di Padova, 03/06/2009]--Gianegiane (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep in mind that Italy is already threatening to obscure youtube and facebook within the Italian territory unless they regulate their contents according to government dictated standards. We cannot risk that the same happens to en.Wiki. We must follow it.Wiki's example and completely erase this entry. The Italian Armed Forces (Carabinieri) have clearly shown they will not tolerate dissent that questions Italy's territorial unity (see newspaper articles). Please delete as soon as possible: people do not need to know about this.Bolivendarsen (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These for sure seem to me to be good reasons for keeping the article! --Checco (talk) 17:04, 6 July 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) 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dror Soref

This may seem like an odd article to bring to AFD. On the surface, it's a decent-looking article, nice pictures and everything. But looking through the sources, it would seem only this man's projects are notable, not the man himself. The sources show only very passing references to the man. The one source that's listed that's dedicated to him is from Business Wire (they simply reprint press releases, not sure if this is kosher with our reliable sources guidelines). Having googled around a bit and having looked through the sources provided in the article, the man simply doesn't seem to meet our inclusion standards. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep I don't really understand this nomination. The guy is a very notable filmaker [3]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know I wouldn't write an article if I felt it was even bordering on notability issues because I wouldn't want to volunteer several days of my time researching and writing if it was going to evaporate. As you know 90 percent of articles here on living people like media professionals, singers, atheletes, etc. can also be called into question and easily be picked apart in afd.

And I definitely like the subject material, I wouldn't be on here editing differential equations. I met the director once at UT and felt he was wikipedia notable and being an editor wanted to write one and expand knowledge on the subject to other film lovers. He told our class about all the superbowl ads he shot and working with weird al and peter o'toole and all these guys so I just had to write an article about him. A lot of these influential guys tend to stay under the radar so I had to go to imdb at first to write his bio but google scholar and news archives also helped find the substantial sources I needed.

Per WP:CREATIVE

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

He has directed two feature length theatrically released films. I've always seen any director that has managed to get theatrical distribution on million dollar films with real working actors like simon baker as notable.

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

All the wierd al music videos, superbowl ads, and two feature films plus producing a major release like Basic.

The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

C - His newest film was the closing night film at slamdance, he has a bunch of industry awards for his commercials plus there is all of this golani brigade Israeli stuff from when he was young in academic articles before he became a director.

Sources: There was a big la times article written about him in the late 80s detailing how he broke into the industry and how he got connected with hollywood power players like medevoy which I have sourced. A chicago tribune article on weird al's early career also mentions him as an up and coming director plus a bunch of articles in the daily variety. I can't possibly see what other evidence afd would need. It would really sadden me if all my work researching and writing went down the drain when I never even thought notability would come into question. I know how 98% of afds end so I'm asking the community to see the notability and not kill all of my hard work and let others interested in filmmaking learn about this cool guy.

Andman8 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I think this was an extremely poor sense of judgement to nominate him for deletion and good faith was not performed here in searching before nominating. I agree with Andman8. BioDetective2508 (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2009
Strong Keep as notability for a notable filmmaker is determined by their works. it would be a bit tough for him to be notable if he were not creating notable projects. Its chicken and egg here. Film notability = Filmmaker notability. He does have coverage because of and in relation to his notable films [4]. His being award-winning is icing on the cake. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this article be nominated for deletion? This director is very notable! It seems Wiki Editors delete anyone they haven't heard of personally, assuming the rest of the world is the same! Larrywilliams101 (talk) 23:54, 3 July 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} 04:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craigh Barboza

BLP with no references Jared555 (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Even what's asserted doesn't make the cut. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A senior editor of a national publication might indeed meet the notability criteria, if he has been the subject of significant writing in independent sources. But the only sources cited are works edited and/or written by this person, and none that have been written about him and his significance in journalism, so this article doesn't include what it needs to meet the criteria. I wasn't able to find writing about him with my search of google, though I did find some things by him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Self promoting and the article was created by a user with the same name which strongly suggest that it's him and goes against the Wikipedia:Guidelines. Tree Karma (talk) 03:10, 2 July 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} 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9/12 Candidate

I originally deleted this as A7-Corp, but another editor objected, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. ... discospinster _talk 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just received notification that this page is slotted for deletion. My opinion may not matter much. If you delete this page now you'll only be re-adding it later. 9/12 Candidate is growing as a buzzword among political circles. We are NOT in an election year, but the organization finding and promoting 9/12 Candidates is growing strong. In fact there are more that 600,000 people listed as 9/12ers in the country.

There is a political tsunami in the works. 9/12 Candidates is a part of that. I would recommend that you NOT delete this page. One of Wikipedia's strength's is that is accommodates new ideas faster than traditional media encyclopaedias. Granted, I'm not the final say, that's for someone else who may have no idea what's going on. Sure, you wont here this mentioned on the news yet, but just because it's operating under the radar of the traditional media doesn't mean that it's not viable.

My 2 cents

Jacob F. Roecker (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it now, and add it back when it becomes notable.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

Delete Even assuming notability, it's better suited for a dictionary.-Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When and if this becomes notable then it can be included, yes. Wikipedia might be faster than a paper encyclopedia but it is not a crystal ball--Talain (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Political tsunami or not, it's not notable yet. The article relies almost entirely on a website run by the 9/12 project. We could normally use Glenn Beck's show as a RS, but when it's to promote it's own project, the COI becomes an issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I understand this article doesn't quite fit the norms yet. Believe me it's odd, and yes, ATM it's difficult to reference outside of the site. That's changing, and changing rapidly. Within the next week Wikipedia's articles for Adam Kokesh, and Rosanna Pulido will be changing. Ron Miller and Rand Paul's pages should be linking back to this one. Because the organization is not a 501C or a PAC it's official identity is based on the candidates who are willing to sign, and the volunteers who are working on the site. Let's look at it from this perspective... There are more than 600,000 people who identify themselves as 9/12ers. They will want candidates who represent what they stand for. A 9/12 Candidate can come from any political party. They simply need to sign the contract.
- For the record, I think maybe what needs to happen is this article should be steered toward the point where it can remain. No one working on this is paid by Glenn Beck or his staff to falsely promote something on his behalf. 912Candidates.org isn't run by "the 9/12 project" I'm sure most of the contributors to the article have visited the website.
- So, if I understand things properly. The wiki pages (that already exist) for candidates who have signed this contract ought to link here. The references ought to refer to the candidate's websites, not the posts on http://912candidates.org. The article needs to mention something regarding its significance towards the top of the article--I think referencing 600,000 people who identify themselves as 9/12ers ought to do it. With those changes, will it still be under consideration for deletion? 70.243.182.46 (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that Beck runs the website, but it is impossible to seperate him from this because it is his idea, word for word. Nor have I accused anyone from Beck's staff from being involved. I don't think that is the case at all. Regardless, the 912candidates.org website is a primary source and the article relies almost entirely on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. You will be adding this later. The 9/12 Movement can be referenced or used as an addendum to the Tea Parties of 2009.
Do not delete. Merely because you disagree with a stance, doesn't mean it should be deleted from Wikipedia. This is not a minor movement, but rather includes 100's of thousands of people.
Delete. So far, this would appear to be a non-notable organization and a one-man campaign. If it becomes notable in the future, this can always be reconsidered. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferencable at present, as the article's advocate admits. Possible merge with the article on Beck. DGG (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the referencing issues mentioned above have now been addressed. How do we ask the fine editors for another reiview? Also, this may best be modified for an entry on a page about "the 9/12 Movement" or "the 9/12 Project." Thus far Glenn Beck's page is the only one that references these two things. 9/12 Candidates may fit nicely into an article about a "9/12 Movement" 155.219.241.11 (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC) (JFR)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against re-creation. Per others' comments, it can be restored when notability is better established.--JayJasper (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G2G --I believe all of the issues addressed in this review have now been covered. Prominence is determined by the calibre of the candidates (Rand Paul and Sen Bob Smith) as well as the AIP's endorsement. The construction of the article is still sloppy, but I don't believe this is grounds for deletion, rather good coaching on the part of the editors, whose input I welcome on the discussion page for the article. [5] 155.219.241.11 (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC) (JFR)[reply]
Delete. Predictions of "this party will be very popular" violates WP:CRYSTAL. 68.244.204.67 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like grounds for re-wording not delete there... but hey. I'm the new guy. That's why I asked for good coaching from editors... ;-) 70.243.182.46 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)(JFR)[reply]
  - Looked for such predictions and didn't see them... Please advise (jacob <at> 912candidates.org)
Delete Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia is not a free web hosting or promotion service. Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title doesn't fit the material. The material is mostly about the 9-12 pledge. The material is already on the Glenn Beck article. The article may never be able to be notable because the relevant information about candidates who sign the pledge is: they signed. It would seem doomed to be always a copy of the pledge, and a list of the candidates. And of course the aforementioned issues of notability, present or foretold. Anarchangel (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:As Anarchangel points out, the material is in the Glenn Beck article, so perhaps a redirect to that page should be considered.--JayJasper (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As written, this is a political manifesto whose purpose is to promote a particular view of government and a set of candidates who've signed a pledge to uphold that view, not an objective article about a political movement. While it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility that a genuine encyclopedia article could be written about this topic, this article isn't it. Delete unless vastly improved by close. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glenn Beck, perhaps to Glenn_Beck#The_9.2F12_Project. The fork appears to be sourced primarily to WP:SELFPUBs and does not demonstrate independent notability. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Glenn Beck. As it stands now this article is little more than blatant WP:SOAP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT Dear Editors: It seems to me that you ought to start living up to your name and helping to edit the bias out of the article. The same amount of keystrokes it takes to offer a recommendation for "delete" might be used to edit the bias in the article. Or am I starting to sniff an agenda in the air? Seems a bias is the only thing wrong with the page now. That's not grounds for deletion. That's grounds for editing!!!

Comment: The main problem seems to be that the article does not verify that its topic is independently notable. A secondary issue is that a WP:SOAPBOX appears to have filled this void of notability. If you can remedy the first concern (as you are welcome to do, and as you may be required to do if you would like for the material to have an article), then you would drastically increase the odds of deferring the second concern to the WP:TALKPAGE. In a nutshell, the article's foundation isn't so much slanted as it is nonexistent. Give us a notable place to stand on, and we can go from there. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AIP's endorsement doesn't qualify? http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=5612&posts=1&highlight=912 aip&highlightmode=1#M16785

A primary source like that might have a place in the America's Independent Party article, but it does not go very far toward establishing objective notability about this 9/12 thing. See WP:PSTS, WP:SPS, and WP:SELFPUB (especially provision #5) for more info. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a little bit clearer. So, how long does this review process go on? It might take close to a month to have this particular issue addressed. Besides, I'm not seeing the same comments about Green Bloggers, Blogging Tories, and Cox_&_Forkum and maybe some attention should be headed that way... This wikipedia entry will probably remain stagnant for a couple of weeks before this can be addressed. It would make sense though, that the basic definition of a 9/12 Candidate is added to the Category:9/12 Candidates page. This would help define the topic, and those that qualify for the category Rand Paul etc. Would this be an appropriate solution? Delete this entry until a more credible source exists, add the definition of what a 9/12 Candidate is to the Category:9/12 Candidates page? The category is likely to be legitimate even if this article is not. Please advise.

AfDs usually last for a week, making this one due for closure by the 7th. If you think you could improve the article but would need more time, then you might be able to WP:USERFY it for a while. If you'd rather avoid that hassle, then you can just save the piece to your hard drive before the AfD closes (click the article's edit tab, select and copy the contents, and paste them into a word processor), and then re-create it once you're reasonably confident that it conforms to encyclopedic standards (especially WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV). If the revision did still end up back at AfD, it might stand a greater chance than the current version of ending in a "keep" or at least a "merge/redirect" consensus. As for the category, that is up for deletion, too. In fact, it was that discussion that led me to this one. I haven't participated in that CfD; I just saw it after I nominated one of my own on the same day. Ironically, it was the mention of a preexisting category that legitimated the item I wanted to delete (and led me to withdraw the nomination), whereas the category you're invoking is just as controversial as the item you're defending. I have a hunch that both the AfD and the CfD are going to end up as deletes, so I'd recommend userfication or something like it if you think you can improve the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If the article ends up being WP:REDIRECTed to, say, Glenn Beck rather than deleted outright, then all previous versions of the article will remain available to you in the page history of the redirect. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question So if this one has gone through the review process, and gets deleted on the 7th, then I will happily nominate Green Bloggers, Blogging Tories, and Cox_&_Forkum for the same review process as well. If wikipedia's policies are to be enforced, they should be enforced on the left & right of the political spectrum. The volume of discussion on this topic appears as though the conservative entries are worth the attention and review of editors (even deletion) while entries on the left remain. In order to maintain wikipedia's neutrality those other entries should submit to this same review. Until they are brought to that point, I does not fit reason that this article should be deleted.

Comment: As pointed out below, WP:WAX is a poor argument. But, for what it's worth, Green Bloggers is up for deletion, and in fact received from me a similar !vote (i.e., merge/redirect) to the one I gave for 9/12 Candidate (i.e., redirect). However, any nominations (or !votes) that you make are likely to be overridden if you make them simply in order to prove a WP:POINT. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable at this time per lack of independent reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No non-primary non-bloggish cites to support notability of this group (or "grouping") itself. Deletion isn't "forever", it's just "for now"...if and when it reaches the threshold of citeable notability, it becomes worthy of an article here. DMacks (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It fails WP:WEB because I can't find a single RS. In regards to "There is a political tsunami in the works", see WP:CRYSTAL. When the wave hits, let us know. APK coffee talk 15:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enforce your standards Green Bloggers, Blogging Tories, and Cox_&_Forkum are not labeled for deletion review.

WP:WAX is not an excuse for keeping this article. If you feel that the articles you have listed do not meet Wikipedia policies or guidelines, you are free to nominate them for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was an excuse for keeping this article. I said you need to enforce your standards. It's not MY encyclopedia that looks biased. Why does this article get so much attention? Really. If I do recommend them for deletion, then it's easy for the authors to cite me as having an agenda. That's not how this is supposed to work. I'm surprised you might have suggested it. If I did believe that wikipedia had an agenda (and the jury is still out), I might think that was the intent of your suggestion, have me (with my "evil" conservative views) label something as not noteworthy, and have it remain because it's easy in our culture to call your opponent biased. So, no, I won't be nominating the aforementioned sites for deletion. I will continue to argue that if several people who are noteworthy enough to have a wikipedia article about them, have signed this contract, then the contract, by nature is noteworthy. I will also argue that just because something has not hit the 'mainstream media' for verification, invalidates it's importance. Certainly after an independent blogtalkradio host with several hundred listeners called us, and asked us to be the subject of at least 7 of his shows, including interviews with Rand Paul and Senator Bob Smith, this should validate the article. Of course, that didn't hit the normal media. So it doesn't qualify. Just like the 9/12 Movement get's a casual mention on Glenn Beck's article, but no one is writing a separate article about how the 661,000 9/12ers are forming non-profit organizations, PACs, and Kitchen Table Organizations across the country. Still, my favorite argument against this whole thing is the blacklisting of "washingtonisbroke" because I asked him to make edits. Gee, he knew something about what was going on, and edited user generated content. Don't you as editors edit based upon what you research and what you know? I mean the article on "communication" is biased, it was written by authors of the American Communication Association and represents only a small portion of the discipline, and a relatively narrow model. It's also written in such a way that major changes would have to be made to the article in order to fix it. I know, that doesn't justify leaving this up. Got it. What it does illustrate is that one of the fundamental issues with user generated content is that the users who edit, are generally the ones who know something about their subject. This article does meet notability guidelines. 661,000 9/12ers, AIP endorsement on their website, published by their site admin (would you like the head of AIP to send you an email--I can get it?), Glenn Beck discussing it on his radio show, and candidates who have already had wikipedia articles about them for years. So if those four things don't qualify this article as noteworthy, I guess we'll have to wait until some "noteworthy" organization recognizes 9/12 Candidates. Since the accuracy of noteworthy organizations is never without question. Of course, I'm sure the reason this article is getting so much attention is because of the embarrassment a few months ago: [6]. Yeah, wouldn't want to repeat that one again.... Please people, aren't there more important things to be worrying about editing? Or maybe actually, could you help "Edit" the article so bias is removed, the subject is discussed, and the article conforms more towards wikipedia's guidelines? Thank you for your time.

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 due to WP:ATHLETE failure. If he ever plays in a fully pro league, drop me a note and I'll restore it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Quinn (footballer)

Association football player who fails WP:ATHLETE because he has never played above the semi-professional Football Conference level. I don't think he is particularly noteworthy otherwise. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Conference National is a notable level of football, and games are often televised. Eldumpo (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 20:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 20:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has acheived nothing of note, has not played at a high enough level to satisfy WP:ATHLETE, and there seems to be very little in the way of available secondary sources to satisfy WP:BIO. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 21:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 21:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to meet threshold of WP:ATHLETE.-Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Conference National is not a fully-professional league, and so Quinn fails notability at WP:ATH. Games being shown on television does not make players of that league notable. --Jimbo^[online] 21:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you missed out a 'not' above. A game being shown on widely-available TV channels (well, until now!) is inherently notable. Eldumpo (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes I did, thanks. There's people on television every second of the day, it doesn't make them notable. It certainly doesn't make players who play in a league that have a handful of games shown on television notable. --Jimbo^[online] 07:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 23:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; Conference as a league may be notable, playing a few games in it isn't. No significant coverage.--ClubOranje^T 11:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. By the way, even G.S. Mazara 1946 games are regularly televised in the Western Sicily zone, but I doubt their players are actually notable only for that. --Angelo (talk) 10:02, 6 July 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. The discussion on the notability of asteroids can continue at WP:ASTRO. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7528 Huskvarna

This article does not satisfy Wikipedia's Notability criteria. It has not received significant independent coverage: a Google search appears to bring up mainly lists of asteroids and Wikipedia mirrors/translations. A search for the asteroid's name on the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data Service (ADS) abstracts system retrieves no results [7], nor does a search for its previous temporary designation 1993 FS39 [8]. Icalanise (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 10,392 asteroid stubs (see Category:Asteroid stubs), which I think is ample evidence that according to Wikipedia custom and practice, any asteroid on the JPL Small-Body Database is included. This seems to coincide with Wikipedia's Five Pillars, which explain that one of Wikipedia's purposes is a gazeteer. Mention of this asteroid would certainly belong on a gazeteer.
Strictly, this fails notability, so a policy-based outcome would be a merge to List of minor planets: 7001–8000, but I just don't have the heart to recommend that, considering that if we decide asteroids can be non-notable, there will be an awful lot of merges to do.
So the outcome I recommend is that we decide asteroids are "geographical locations" for notability purposes, and go with keep.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question is whether it is worth the effort of maintaining the stats at two different places. Makes it more difficult/tedious to keep things up-to-date if orbital elements are revised, and provides a place for malicious/wrong edits to accumulate and remain for long periods of time... Multiple mergers are a one-off task, could probably be achieved by bot (after all, most of these are bot-created) Icalanise (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. I've opened a can of worms here... are we deciding on this article or are we deciding on notability guidelines for asteroids in general? It may be worth taking this to the discussion page of WP:N, if the latter.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. This asteroid is not notable. It has no information that would traditionally be associated with a gazeteer since this is not a human settlement or even a place that humans have explored. In general, tabular information is better kept in tables, not spun out into infoboxes. This article will be difficult to maintain. Perhaps asteroids could be at least gathered into types or classes and discussed as groups...there would seem to be very little to say about any one isolated asteroid. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge Deleting this article doesn't improve the encyclopedia. If it's not independently notable then redirect/ merge to the appropriate target(s). Plus it's named after that lawnmower company. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep As stated above, Wikipedia is a gazetteer according to the Five Pillars. Do minor planets qualify? That's the big question. At the risk of using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, these articles are no worse than the thousands of Star stubs, and the maybe tens of thousands of articles on little hamlets, lakes other geographical features across the world. Also, a merge of all information would be impractical...we'd be losing a lot of info about the orbital and physical characteristics of these rocks. It seems that the information is verifiable and moderately abundant for at least the first few thousand minor planets; I see no reason not to keep them barring community consensus to change the notability standards for WP:ASTRO.-RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 00:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if not for anything else for the fact that a merge is really unfeasible. It is really not expand the list article with all the characteristics listed in the infobox here. Nergaal (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider geographical/astrographical/biological/etc articles inherently notable. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that there is enough coverage of asteriods to consider them notable. Captain panda 13:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The workgroup WT:ASTRO seems not to have consensus about this, so the correct course is not to start off deleting individual ones and make things all the harder. DGG (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Huntster, inherently notable. --G W… 20:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I admit that I'm torn on these myself, but unless and until someone is willing to deal with all of them (I could link a couple thousand similar articles), we shouldn't be inconsistent. This AfD ought to be closed and the discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#7528 Huskvarna, where the stake-holders in these articles can reach some level of Wikipedia-wide consensus.
— Ω (talk) 20:27, 5 July 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. Feel free to relist to gain a bigger response. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East County Blackshirts

Another non/semi-professional high school based team Passportguy (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The rationale given isn't a valid one. Try citing an actual guideline like WP:CORP. Katr67 (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the other two nomination on sports teams created by the same user on why I said "another". Btw : I could have added "non-notable" to the above, but honestly that seems to be pretty much self-explanatory. But if you like : WP:CLUB and WP:N. Passportguy (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I created the article.) Team is in an established nationwide league. Ample independent sources exist. Google news results --Esprqii (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to leagues article for now.--Giants27 (t|c) 01:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 June 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 19:43, 30 June 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 Government Information Office. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Info

Non-notable online language website. Failing to find some improving sources. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Government Information Office which is the Taiwanese government agency publishing this website. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Appears to be written by someone with conflict of interest.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:Conflict of Interest. Woo, good find on the COI! I was going to for "Merge" also until Sandor Clegane pointed out that it was written by someone who works there...Thank you. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 June 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 19:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ChildofMidnight.--Aervanath (talk) 17:23, 1 July 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 for deletion.. There isn't a clear consensus for merging, and there was very little discussion of closing as delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Palestine war

This page is a WP:POVFORK of the main 1948 Arab-Israeli War page. 1948 War (with a capital "W") redirects to the main page while 1948 war (with a lowercase "W") redirects to this POV fork. GHcool (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A real debate took place on the IPCOOL project : [9]. It was not intended, such as the current RfD to pov-push a disgusting pov. Just keep in the area where you have a minimum know-how personal attack removed by Nableezy User:ceedjee

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know anything about the topic and you didn't even read the source. Go and see them. Go and read at least the lead. AND THEN APOLOGIZE. You should be forbidden to vote. User:ceedjee

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems pretty straight forward, merge content into the existing 1948 Arab-Israeli War article. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know anything about the topic and you didn't even read the source. Go and see them. Go and read at least the lead. AND THEN APOLOGIZE. You should be forbidden to vote. User:ceedjee

Merge per Fuzbaby. I see no useful neutral-POV information that merits a standalone article, especially when the main article has a neutral title. I also recommend speedy-redirecting 1948 war (lowercase "w") to the main article. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many wars in 1948. The most important war occuring in India. If you don't know anything about history, refrain from voting. user:ceedjee

General question I'll ignore the personal commentary and address the relevant point -- do other years with multiple major wars have disambiguation pages? If so, then 1948 war and 1948 War ought to both redirect to the appropriate disambiguation page, possibly "Major wars in 1948". --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge What I see now is either poorly sourced or duplicates the material on the main page anyway, anything sourced and not included on the main page can be happily merged in. Cazort (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly source !??? You should be forbidden to give any mind. They are given in the articles. They are at the end of this. User:ceedjee

Merge and redirect Clear example of WP:POVFORK.-Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POVFORK ??? PROVE THIS. You are just a stupid ignorant. User:ceedjee

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this blatant WP:POVFORK Historicist (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant povfork. You are just a stupid ignorant. You didn't even take care to read the source and you didn't even take care to go and see who read this. Did you only ask him. All people who consider "merge" are stupid ignorant who, sorry that, should be forbiden to edit any encyclopaedia. user:ceedjee

comment I want to draw your attention to a very bad trend in Israel/Palestine articles. Tis article is an example of a recent surge in the paired articles we have spawned, and they are far from NPOV. See for example Kafr Bir'im and Kfar Bar'am, two articles about the same village that barely mention the other's existence, or Silwan and City of David or Shechem and Nablus. There is a current RFC on Nakba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nakba) where User:Hemlock Martinis proposes adding an article on Nakba although there is already a heavily edited article 1948 Arab–Israeli War. It is as though we now settle disputes by approving alternate realities, an Arab narrative and a Jewish narrative, one article pretending that Jews have never lived in a place, the other ignoring the Arabs who live there now. It doesn't do our credibility as an encyclopedia any good. (I assume everyone saw the rcent New York Times article on how untrustworthy Wikipedia is on the Middle East) I suggest that we handle things on the model of Temple Mount, with a good faith attempt to give due weight to the names used by all parties, everyone's history, and the points of view of all parties in a single article.Historicist (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. --GHcool (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You both pov-pushers. You think there is a pov fork because there is the word Palestine. User:ceedjee
Keep. I can't quite see why this has been proposed for deletion. Historians (from all sides) use the term frequently. I believe it describes the period covering the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War i.e. November 1947 to July 1949. What should happen is that we describe those events summary-style in 1948 Palestine War, with sub-articles for each topic. What is the benefit of deleting the umbrella article that gives the context? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps, Benny Morris splits the 1948 Palestine War (or what he calls the 1948 War) into (1) the first stage of the civil war (this is when he says "the war begins") beginning November 30, 1947; (2) the second stage of the civil war, beginning April 1948; (3) the Pan-Arab invasion, May 15, 1948; and (4) the various operations thereafter. I can't see the benefit of losing that structure by deleting 1948 Palestine War. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Efraim Karsh, in some ways on the opposite "side" from Morris, if we have to speak in these terms: "The 1948 Palestine War was probably the most important Middle Eastern armed confrontation since the destruction of the Ottoman empire, and the creation of a new regional order in the wake of the First World War. By the time the fighting ended in the summer of 1949 ..." (Arafat's War, p. 33). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alon Kadish and Avraham Sela (2005). "Myths and historiography of the 1948 Palestine War revisited: the case of Lydda," The Middle East Journal, September 22, 2005.
Ilan Pappe (2004). A History of Modern Palestine, Cambridge University Press, p. 131, section called "the Palestine War," though his dates are different (May to January 1949), p. 131.

The above shows that from left-wing anti-Zionist to right-wing pro-Zionist, Israeli academic historians use the term. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- That's beside the point. The point isn't that the term is POV (although, one could argue that it is). The point is that there is another better, longer article about the war already under a better name. --GHcool (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You argued that it was a POV fork; that is your deletion reason. But the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article isn't about the 1948 Palestine War. Different timeframe. And the term is used by historians from all persuasions, so it's not a POV term. Therefore, I'm not seeing why you would want to delete it. It's the kind of thing that will keep on being recreated, because people will look for it and wonder why it's not there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not once it is merged/redirected to the real, NPOV 1948 Arab-Israeli War article. --GHcool (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow what you're saying. AfDs are not where merges and content is decided. What is decided here is whether to delete the title. Anyone can recreate the content, and they will, because it would be odd not to have an article on it. You keep saying it's the same as the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, but you haven't shown that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've shown it. --GHcool (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not addressing my point. (1) 1948 Arab-Israeli War (what Israelis call the War of Independence) began on May 15, 1948, as our article on it says. (2) 1948 Palestine War comprises that and the previous Jewish-Palestinian civil wars fought before the creation of the state of Israel. Why would you want to delete the second? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be disingenuous. The 1948 Arab-Israeli war has a section on the civil war.Historicist (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. LOL. LOL. What a stupid comment. It has not. It is in the context. You didn't even read this. You just one of these frustrated pov-pusher. 81.244.182.215 (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page 1948 Arab-Israeli War has an extensive section on the civil war.Historicist (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into the main 1948 Arab-Israeli War article. This page appears to be a blatant WP:POVFORK. --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge 1948 Arab-Israeli War into this article. This is the term that historians use for the time range from near the end of the mandate through the 48 war, and having a separate article on the 48 war without the relevant context is what is the POV fork. Nableezy (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
- Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2006, ISBN 1845190750
- Saleh Abdel Jawad, The Arab and Palestinian Narratives of the 1948 War, in Robert I. Rotberg, Israeli and Palestinian Narratives of Conflict, Indiana University Press, 2006, ISBN 978-0-253-21857-5.
- Efraim Karsh, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948, Osprey publishing, 2002. FROM EFRAIM KARSH, pov-pushers.
- Walid Khalidi, Selected Documents on the 1948 Palestine War, Journal of Palestine Studies, 27(3), 79, 1998.
- Benny Morris, 1948, Yale University Press, 2008, ISBN 9780300126969
- Eugene Rogan & Avi Shlaim, The War for Palestine - Rewriting the history of 1948, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
- David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948. Strategy and Diplomacy, Routledge, 2004.

You have here a FULL PANEL of RECENT SCHOLARS on the TOPIC and MOST OF ALL, from absolutely ALL SIDES and ALL POV's.

GHCool was fully aware of this. He is just a pov-pusher.

User:ceedjee

Comment - The debate is here user:ceedjee

Immediate undefinite topic ban of GHCool and Historicist for blatant pov pushing. user:ceedjee

comment Most wars have multiple names. Statements like "This is the term that historians use..." are necessarily untrue when describing wars, like this one, where each side has a preferred name. In this case, Many Israelis prefer some version of the phrase "War of Independence." Many proponents of the Palestinian perspective prefer "War in Palestine" and the most widely-used neutral term is some version of Arab-Israeli War. This widely accepted phrase, "1948 Arab-Israeli War" has the virtue of listing, with brevity and accuracy, the opponents, Israeli on one side and several Arab states on the other, without giving a POV, as any inclusion of the word "Independence" would do. The advantage or problem with the phrase War in Palestine is that Palestine has come to be both a geographic term and the term widely used term for the aspirational state of the Palestinian people. The phrase therefore gives and inexorably POV boost to the belief that this was a war in land that belonged to a designated nation, i.e., it implies that since the war was fought in Palestine it was fought on land that rightfully belongs to the Palestinian nation. In reality, of course, the question of which nation or nations have a right to sovereignty on that land is the very issue that is being fought over. Use of the word Palestine as the article title is a violation of NPOV.Historicist (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are discussing here. The sources provided above have multiple Israeli historians using this name. Also, as has been pointed out, the phrase Israeli War of Independence != Palestine War. And it implies no such thing as that the land belongs to the Palestinian nation. See, there was this place, it was called the British Mandate of Palestine, in fact the Jews who lived there were called Palestinian Jews. The name implies that it was fought in mandatory Palestine, which actually was a real place. Amazing what a little reading and not just going on ones gut feelings can do. Nableezy (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is a raucous democracy with a famously free press. Unlike the situation in many countries, Israelis are entitled to publish whatever they please. A good many Israeli historians choose to publish books that present the history of the region from a highly partisan Palestinian point of view. My point, however, is that it is specifically historians who write as advocates of the Palestinian perspective - of whatever ancestry and of whatever citizenship - who use the term Palestine War.Historicist (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cherrypicking examples to support your position is not helpful. There are hundreds of books about this war. You selectively site a title by Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, but Gelber also has a book entitled: Independence Versus Nakbah: The Arab–Israeli War of 1948. In an imperfect world, Arab-Israeli War is the most commonly used and probably the most parsimonious and neutral term available.Historicist (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you not understand about this statement of absolute fact: 1948 Palestine War is not the same thing as the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, the second forms a part of the first. And you originally said that "Many Israelis prefer some version of the phrase "War of Independence", not what you say you meant later. But as to what you think you mean now (at least until that is shown to be fraudulent as well), would you care to show something backing up that statement? Or is it again your gut feeling? Nableezy (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is already covered in 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and 1948 Arab-Israeli War.Historicist (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this article should be a parent to those summary style. Nableezy (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge TomStar81 (Talk) 23:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem here is that people are trying to use AfD as a way of solving a content dispute. AfD can't rule on the content of a page, or merges, or redirects. AfD is here to decide whether a title should be deleted entirely. The content was already discussed here, where it was decided that 1948 Palestine War was an umbrella term used by historians from all sides to cover essentially two wars: (1) a civil war in 1947-1948 between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews in Palestine before the state of Israel existed; and (2) a war between Israelis and other Arab states started on May 15, 1948, triggered by Israel's declaration of independence. It is historically inaccurate to say, "well, there was really only ever one war." The second was entirely different from the first, in terms of combatants, and in terms of goals. I ask that an admin who has never been involved in the I/P disputes before, and who has no known relationship with the participants, close this, because we have a situation here where we have the numbers on one side, and the historical facts (as well as WP policy about deletion) on the other. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I meant to add to the above that Historicist has admitted the opposition here is to the word "Palestine." This is an issue I've been seeing increasingly on Wikipedia, namely that a small number of Israeli editors and their supporters are trying to make certain words disappear from Wikipedia. (It's ironic that those same editors recently condemned the ArbCom for blocking pro-Israeli accounts that were trying to stop the words "Judea" and "Samaria" from disappearing.) The only point that matters for Wikipedia is that we are not here to make words and terms disliked by one side or another disappear from history. Palestine existed, as did Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews, and a series of distinct, separable battles were fought for supremacy over certain parts of it in 1947-1948, only one of which is called the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (or what the Israelis call their War of Independence, a title I personally would have no problem using for it). Historians call that series of battles the 1948 Palestine War. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Speedy) Per SlimVirgin, Nableezy, etc. This is not at all a case of POVFORKing, or something which should be in AfD at all. This is a summary / umbrella article, covering a war which had two major phases, each having its own article. It is not a fork of either. Quoting from the lede of these articles, there was:

A Civil War, the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, which " lasted from 30 November 1947, the date of the United Nations vote in favour of the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the UN Partition Plan,[3] to the termination of the British Mandate itself on 14 May 1948."

followed by

A War between nations, 1948 Arab–Israeli War "The war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine in mid-May 1948 following a previous phase of civil war in 1947–1948."

The current structure was decided at the IP collaboration as noted above. This, 1948 Palestine war, is the "main article", not 1948 Arab–Israeli War; changing this would entail changing the subjects of the two daughter articles. Nobody is suggesting use of the delete button or anything but normal editting. Peoples' feelings about "Palestine" and what the article should be named is not at all a matter for AfD.John Z (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The bigger issue here as that this article does not meaningfully add to the existing articles 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, both of which cover far more ground than this article. While the collaborative development is a positive it does not override community consensus on the subject. Alansohn (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand, if this is a parent article to those two shouldnt each of them cover more ground individually? Can you explain your objection to having this as a parent article to those two? And merge where? Nableezy (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand either. That the Wikipedia:Summary style article has less detail than the ones it summarizes is the usual way.John Z (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1948 Palestine War article does need to be built up more, which is perhaps what Alan is seeing. It should be written in summary style, with sections on the civil war and the Arab-Israeli war, but without going into the military details, which should be left to those sub-articles. It also needs sections on the background and the demographic and political consequences. I'm willing to help do that, but I'm not keen on having to do it before this AfD is over. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SlimVirgin's reasoning above is fair. I'll add that we do have a problem of basically the same information appearing in too many places, but this problem should be solved in cooperative workshops, not by arguments on AfD pages. Zero^talk 21:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- While I have not examined all the "child" articles in detail, this article is seeking to provide an overview of the entire sequence of events. The use of "Palestine" does not indicate POV-pushing: that was the official name of the territory subject to the British mandate. However I would prefer to see the article covering all the events of the 1940s in Palestine, including the unrest that led to the termination of the British mandate. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SlimVirgin Gang14 (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously helps with context. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 19:04, 6 July 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. It appears as if the G11 ship has sailed and there are no other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christel House International

Does have coverage but is an advert There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — A quick Google search tells me that the article is borderline-notable. If it is kept, it seriously needs a rewrite. —Animum (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Animum got it right. Google news shows some notability here but it needs to be rewritten.--RadioFan (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I trimmed some of the promotional language. As written the article is now quite stubby and needs filling out. It seems an article could be written based on sources but expansion is necessary. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article has already been speedy deleted four times in the past two days, as you can see here. Bmg916^Speak 18:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wow buddy what you been smokinh? LOlThere is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. There seems to be clearly material to write an article. The same admin did all the speedies, with the reasons f , A7 and G11 -- and both of them are wrong. Indicating it serves a large no. of people is an indication of notability, & there was an informative core. It was also marked for copyvio of http://christelhouse.org/ --some of it was, but not all. DGG (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the assertion that G11 was wrong. G11 states that the article "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic", which I felt applied to original incarnations. TN X Man 19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is notability when covered by Forbes and The Hindu; the Reuters piece is PR as is the Perspective magazine article, but Gnews shows coverage in Times of India, Indian Express, Indianapolis Star etc. Also, since it's a non commercial organization (as it is a non-profit org), WP:CLUB should apply, and both criteria are satisfied. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Spaceman7Spiff. There are notable reliable sources. Tree Karma (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But the creator of the article probably has a strong WP:COI and needs to be counseled about it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:00, 2 July 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, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Ryan

Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hasn't played professionally. Wasn't drafted in the first round of the NHL draft. Has yet to win any significant amateur/junior award. Patken4 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior precedent: Examples include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and at least 25 other AfDs for similar players. When/If this player wins a major award or plays in a fully professional league, then this article can be recreated, until then, he is not notable per WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. -Pparazorback (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Standard post-Draft article creation frenzy always results in a lot of non-notable bio pages. This is one of them. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:18, 4 July 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 23:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Blacker

Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just a typical case of players being added days after being drafted which time and again consensus shows is not enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Doesnt seem to have anything mentioned here why hes notable. no sources present. Byond this as stated above second rounders are not notable until they play professionally. 1st rounders though are. I can see the first few picks in the second round squeeking by but again nothing in the article explains why hes notable. We can re add him once he satisfies the criteria at player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE for hockey players. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hasn't played professionally. Hasn't won a significant amateur/junior award. Patken4 (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior precedent: Examples include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and at least 25 other AfDs for similar players. When/If this player wins a major award or plays in a fully professional league, then this article can be recreated, until then, he is not notable per WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. -Pparazorback (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Standard post-Draft article creation frenzy always results in a lot of non-notable bio pages. This is one of them. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:19, 4 July 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, closing per WP:SNOW. The result is pretty obvious; even bands we do not really like may still (unfortunately) meet inclusion criteria. Shereth 14:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brokencyde

Again, non-notable. This article has been repeatedly salted because they are non-notable. And no, charting at #86 does not notability make. I know that's the baseline at WP:MUSIC, but consider: to reach 86th, all you have to do is push a few-thousand copies. It's technically speedyable for G4, but, again, it has to go through AFD because of a DRV that lasted about three hours. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no notability. Timneu22 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I'm going to give it a Keep, the charting helps establish some notability, and sourcing also helps(and the Warren Ellis comment makes me laugh, not that that matters in terms of notability). Not exactly the best known band out there, but I think they generally scrape by. Barely. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination should be speedy deleted at this point. Salt liberally. A brine, perhaps. JBsupreme (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's #86 out of 200, and charting at #200 is sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC. (to chart at #86, you have to sell something like 6,000 copies in a single week.) My sense is that the nominator, having repeatedly nominated this for deletion, is so convinced of their eternal non-notability that new information contradicting that is simply being disregarded as irrelevant. Chubbles (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Personally, I consider the bar at WP:MUSIC a good deal too low, but it is a well established guideline. If we want to raise it, we should do it with a RfC, not by picking out individual articles. DGG (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major clean up required, specifically things like "...created a band to pass time while having problems with their girlfriends." Apart from that I see no problems really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trix312 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes the bar for WP:Music. This isn't the place to change that bar. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is a horrible display of everything wrong with the concept of notability. How can this band be notable when a full professor at a European university might not be? Nevertheless, sadly, the WP:GNG is met, so I have to hold my nose and !vote Keep.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's also a shame, but I am of the "keep the professor" school, rather than the "delete the band" school. Not sure what it would take for Wikipedia to catch up with academia, but I wish it would. Chubbles (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It passes WP:MUSIC, so we keep. If you have an issue with the notability criteria, go make an RFC about it. Grandmartin11 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable for an article. They have received sufficient coverage and are well-enough known to be notable, unlike some full professors I used to work with, btw.--Michig (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, charting at #86 does notability make. If you don't like the criteria at WP:MUSIC, go attempt to change it. Tan | 39 20:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – not to mention that the album charted, there are also some coverage from what I think are reliable sources [10] and [11]. MuZemike 20:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been a delete !voter in three of the previous Afds, but this time it is different. This sorry excuse for a band has released it's debut album, had it chart at #86 (a pretty good achievement, considering the quality on offer here), and has become the subject of independent coverage from reliable sources. That's enough to pass WP:MUSIC#1 for me. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Tanthalas39. Whether you agree charting #86 confers notability or not, it does satisfy the WP:MUSIC criteria. You should be making your argument there.-Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't usually comment on music stuff but Sparklism sums up the argument. This is an encyclopedia and it is conceivable that someone wants information about this band and it has more than met our baseline requirements and should be included. (I do understand that just because something meets the minimum requirements doesn't mean it MUST be included.) Drawn Some (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you do attempt a RfC about the music criteria, please drop me the link. I think it is way too low. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a funny event to start changing the rules, because in order to change WP:MUSIC such that this band is excluded, you'd have to set the bar so high that it'd never survive an RfC. Chubbles (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Comment They have been and are currently on several notable music tours/festivals. And the recent chart success is more than enough. My comment is that it seems lately that many articles aren't given a fair chance. Someone creates one on a band that could pass but isn't even given enough time to edit the article, add sources, etc. before someone who just hasn't heard of the band puts it up for deletion and then has 6 other people who haven't heard of the band feel the same way and it's pulled. I also feel a lot of the reason this keeps getting nominated is because of how much hatred the band gets when people are supposed to remain unbiased. I even noticed people giving their opinions on quality in here. DX927 (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, far too many people nominate music articles without knowing much at all about music. If I were to go and nominate the article of a scientific theory I've never heard of, I'd be shot down, and I wouldn't do so because I just don't know the topic. If a user isn't sure, they should be using the template indicating that an article may not meet our notability criteria. Musicians are probably one of the most popular subjects for which people use Wikipedia, and getting rid of articles on published and notable musicians seems counter-productive to me, especially given the way that the music world is changing and charting means very little anymore. For example, this 2007 discussion had a collection of editors suggesting to merge the biography of a charting band to the article of one of their songs, because they didn't know anything about the topic at hand. It's a little embarrassing, and I suspect Wikipedia looks a little red-faced when users see we're considering a band they just saw on TV or at a large festival as not being notable. Esteffect (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A final point is, although this isn't the place, I think the bar for WP:MUSIC is right in some ways (charting musicians should always be notable), and completely wrong in others. We often delete the articles of bands whom are up-and-coming, which is precisely the time that a lot of users are going to want to find out more about them. I think this should be reflected in WP:MUSIC that, once a band is receiving coverage from a large music website or media source (e.g. BBC News, NME) that they are then eliglible for inclusion. I'm sure someone whom only believes in having articles on Britney Spears and U2 will shoot that suggestion down, however. Esteffect (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd really like to see 2 things clarified. Which charts (how many different Billboard charts alone are there right now? I also think there should be a point on the charts to call it notable. 200 out of 200 is still "charting", but it is sure different from 2 out of 200. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear in the article that the chart concerned in the Billboard 200, which is the only Billboard album chart that really matters as it's based on sales - it's the US album chart.--Michig (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is starting to get a bit off topic, but if a band is receiving significant coverage from the sources that you mentioned, they would already be notable according to WP:MUSIC as it is now.--Michig (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band are reasonably well-known, even if far from the mainstream. Also WP:MUSIC supports its existence. Esteffect (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, horrible band, but I believe they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, when you consider the charting and the writeup from The Guardian [12]. --Stormie (talk) 03:51, 2 July 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, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Kuzub

Delete Fails notability simultaneously fails "Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)" Self advertisement. attempt to hijack notability. Likely self written. data referenced solely by the authors personal website which is in fact copy and paste. Article is linked with anything related to the city likely as a way of creating notability for the Authors Brand (Musical recording) or as way to create notability where there is not. Personal Propaganda should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Lou mann (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trix312 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G11 or G12, they both work since it is a bunch of directly plagarised spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talain (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --
Speedy Delete Blatant self advertising. Google turns up 3 hits, first this wikipage, second his own webpage, and third his facebook page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzbaby (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.
Delete I couldnt' find any independent coverage and article looks like spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildofMidnight (talk • contribs)
Comment Due to an broken "ref" tag in the nomination statement, I had to remove all the signatures to keep them from expanding to my username. Also removed some vandalism. I'm going to try and sign the comments by hand. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now it's readable. My apologies for using the "unsigned" template but I knew of no better way of attributing the !votes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it!Fuzbaby (talk) 13:58, 1 July 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 23:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden G on the Radio

Delete - Article's subject does not meet general notability guidelines for inclusion. The only sources are primary (subject's myspace and the radio station which the show airs on). Bmg916^Speak 16:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established. The comments at Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Programming are relevant here. WWGB (talk) 01:57, 3 July 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 23:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian post-hardcore

Delete is this a definable and notable genre? is this article the right start? no sources, no context, no nothing... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It barely isn't A1 because of the second sentence even though it really doesn't help the context by adding two bands to it. I'll agree that there isn't any sources and thus fails WP:GNG. Tavix | Talk 16:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 16:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 16:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced arbitrary combination of two topics. Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - technically, this could be speedily deleted due to lack of context. I found 14,300 Ghits, but nothing in Google news. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrocrunk. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only does the article not have any sources.....it doesn't really have any information. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:37, 1 July 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 Swansea Cork Ferries. (X! · talk) · @278 · 05:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swansea Cork Ferries

Delete no indication of notability, no sources, fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The company itself doesn't seem to be notable itself, but the ferry route may well be historically notable as a form transport link. Can anyone tell me how significant/frequent this service was? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The route was very significant, certainly at the Swansea end. See Swansea Cork Ferry. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything worth merging into Swansea Cork Ferry, if not redirect per comments below. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swansea Cork Ferry, the route is notable but the company is not, and all that needs to be said about them is already said there. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Swansea-Cork Ferries (note hyphen) currently redirects to Swansea Cork Ferry, and that until this article about the company was started today, so did this title. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a separate article. Out off the 300 or so hits in gnews, the earlier company specifically has several dozen good ones, including among others this major one [13] That a company has gone out of business does not make it non-notable, if it would have been notable while it was operating.DGG (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only notability the company had while it was operating was directly related to running the Swansea-Cork ferry. As such, imo, it should be covered on the article about the ferry route (as it is already). If a person is only notable for one event, we cover them on the article about the event unless it gets split off for being too big or they become notable for something else. Where a company is notable only for one product, we have an article about the product and cover the company there, again unless it needs to be spun out for size reasons. I think we should apply the same standards here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
M/R into an article on the ferry route where the company can be discussed, using sources that DGG identidied. Not fussed over title. StarM 01:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment an article about the ferry route already exists at Swansea Cork Ferry. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 5 July 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} 04:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of authors opposing cults

~~As we all know lists are evil, and this one exemplifies why.~~ It has no meaningful content. It is a violation of WP:NOR since no criteria exists governing inclusion to the list. What is the working definition of "cult"? What establishes "opposition"? Why "authors"? If someone known for writing cookbooks says in an interview that they are opposed to Raëlism do they go on the list? This page is a WP:COATRACK for "cult" criticism. PelleSmith (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —PelleSmith (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —PelleSmith (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —PelleSmith (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is full of philosophical and practical flaws. If someone is opposed to the Unification Church but are themselves a Scientologist, do they count? What if they are opposed to Scientology but don't think it's a cult? For practical purposes almost everyone is opposed to cults - they just differ on what they think is a cult. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningless list, not for an encyclopedia. And indeed, why authors? Fuzbaby (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly pointless and subjective. Does this contribute anything to knowledge? --Kimon^talk 20:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we have articles about cults, and rules for using the name, we can have a list of authors of anti-cult works. The present list should be supplemented by saying what particular cult or cults was the concern of each author. . If someone in one cult writes against another the note will explain it, as will the article~~. I do not understand the nomination: it is not the least obvious to most of us that Lists are evil,~~ . The content is meaningful, being a guide to the list of notable writers on a general set of themes. Obviously the meaning is those writers who have written notable books on this particular subject or otherwise concentrated upon it. The natures of the bios of the authors listed make it clear that for most of them saying this is not the least OR., being in most cases supported either by a direct quote or the title of a book of theirs'. DGG (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG lists are evil because they often require editors to become arbiters of categories which are not at all obvious from the outset. They also rarely give us anything of encyclopedic value (that can't be done better with simple categories when appropriate). This list is not a "List of anti-cult writers" which by what you have written one might confuse it for. It most probably is not such a list in the first place because of the politics involved with using terms like "anti-cult", despite there acceptance in mainstream scholarship. If you identify writers with a known social movement then you can actually verify inclusion through reliable sources, but as it is this list begs for subjective value judgments -- ~~again why most lists are evil.~~ I would also like to add that there are no "rules for using the name" here on the Wiki, if by "name" you mean "cult".PelleSmith (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most lists, btw, are based on purely factual matters, so your generalization doesn't apply. Since we keep almost all lists brought here, it's hard to say that "lists are evil" represents our policy, the items are justified at the article level. The question is whether this list is too subjective. If the article can source that he is considered an anti-cult writer, that's sufficient.. DGG (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Remove previous comments] I do believe it is too subjective for reasons already stated. Also I have struck all general comments about lists.PelleSmith (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to Pelle's strikeout by also striking out comments I had made that are now irrelevant. DGG (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is clearly a coatrack. Unacceptable. --Junius49 (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —PelleSmith (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a WP:COATRACK. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopelessly biased premise and title. Obvious WP:COAT. Deconstructhis (talk) 05:26, 3 July 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} 04:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Story of Bonnie and Clyde

Fails WP:NFF. Per recent sources the film is still at the stage of casting and location scouting, while the article itself admits that production is still a month away (if things run to schedule, of course). Don't be fooled by the number of references that have just been added to the article; there is little of substance on offer here. PC78 (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing more to be said. Thanks, MacMed^talk _stalk 01:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Wow. Someone sure like to use Myspace and blogs as sources. The best I could find with some deep digging is that most cast is locked and the film is "expected" to begin filming later this year [14]. Allow it back once principle filming has begun and it gets enough film coverage to pass WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete breaking up a myspace page and regurgitating it is not an article. Kudos to them for avoiding copyvio but until the cameras roll it doesn't get an article. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Sit Down, Shut Up characters. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Littlejunk

An attempt to create an article for a 4-episode appearing character has been left untouched. What is on the page is mostly an 'American Dad!' infobox, not 'Sit Down Shut Up'. -- A ^talk/_contribs 15:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sit Down, Shut Up (U.S. TV series). youngamerican (wtf?) 15:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 16:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into List of Sit Down, Shut Up characters. I found some reliable sources on Google News, but they are about the series and only mention a brief description of each character. If the series gets renewed (which I doubt), more sources might become available. The leftorium 12:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur with Theleftorium's redirect target. Better than my earlier suggestion. youngamerican (wtf?) 17:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Sit Down, Shut Up characters. Nothing to merge, and certainly not a notable character by any stretch. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Dying (Cashis album)

WP:CRYSTAL, insufficient info for a whole article. Soures are primary or unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Per the nomination. It seems like it should have been speedy in any event. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: A COI account (shares the same name as the artists manager) removed the AfD notice from the article pages. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:NALBUMS. "Working titles" are not enough to save them from the WP:HAMMER; in any case there's not enough solid information yet for articles. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there was no AfD template on Euthanasia LP: I have added it. JohnCD (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:CRYSTAL. Can be recreated if and when there's sufficient coverage by multiple, reliable sources. — Satori Son 14:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the hammer. No solid release date at this time. Recreate when there's a scheduled release date. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 02:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete both per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER and most importantly WP:NALBUMS. Alex Douglas (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket CO

No sign of notability, Wikipedia is not an advertising. It could be a blatant ad. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising. The article is written as fluff and has little if any salvageable material, on a topic (a particular device) which is not especially notable. --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TeaDrinker.--Talain (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising by Company Staff.Further it is about a product of a particular company. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Straight forward, blatant advertising. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clever idea, but still spam. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This was declined speedy previously, on the grounds that it can be rewritten. See the article history. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong (if not Speedy) Delete - Blatant ad. If the article were cleaned up and rewritten so it's not pushing a product, the result would be a borderline A7. —LedgendGamer 06:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article creator (User:Dabouav) would appear to be David Abouav, Director for Embedded Systems at KWJ Engineering, the company which manufactures the Pocket CO. Dabouav also created KWJ Engineering (since deleted), which suggests that he may not be familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines regarding conflict of interest and spam. faithless (^speak) 07:59, 1 July 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 copyvio. TeaDrinker (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malak Ahmad Khan

Doesn't meet WP:N and possible hoax? Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work, but seems to say that Khan became the leader of the Mandanh tribe, which is a substantial group of people (3 million or so at present). This claim is backed up by this site. That seems to satisfy notability in my eyes. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs some proper sources. There have been several later people of the same or very similar names. DGG (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cite linked above is a blog and does not count as a reliable source. Delete unless reliable sources providing significant coverage are found Corpx (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy copyvio copyvio of 'Malik Ahmad khan' paragraph of [15]. It has already been deleted as such. Recreated but still copyvio. Computerjoe 's talk 12:58, 2 July 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subaru Legacy (fifth generation)

This article is simply a reproduction of all of the content contained in the appropriate section of Subaru Legacy. It adds no unique content and should be deleted as the existing article is adequate. Biker Biker (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Legacy article was split into multiple articles, this one is simply following the format. The information in the main article is summarized like it should be. --Sable232 (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above, even if this particular article doesn't add that much, the other generations of Subaru Legacy each have their own articles, and it wouldn't make sense for this one not to do the same. IFCAR (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The main page should only contain main info and other stuff should be removed/deleted to this generation page, it will grow enough when times go... no need for deletion --Typ932 ^T·C 15:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons stated above, this vehicle is in the process of being introduced worldwide. As information, from reliable sources, is obtained the article will only grow. This article is a repository of all currently credible information being learned about this vehicle.(Regushee (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep No reason to delete a legit article. The model has been around for a while and merging it all back together would probably result in a huge, overlong article. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pretty overwhelming keep, so happy to withdraw my nomination for deletion. I will however take a look at the main Subaru Legacy article and make sure it doesn't contain too much information, or contain any info not already listed in the individual model-generation articles. Thanks everyone. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:03, 1 July 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 Could have been a WP:CSD candidate too--JForget 23:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Williams

what a joke — Liverpool365 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2009/06/26 16:15:12 (UTC).

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is still set up wrong. The template above has no "View AfD" button.

Delete As factually innacurate. I found no evidence of this person being on J.O.N.A.S., as the article claims--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 14:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete, but now I believe that the info may be correct. The article was written by the subject, and there is zero coverage of this girl or her character that I can find. This may change, so no prejudice against recreation, but for now, delete as non-notable.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 14:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found nothing at IMDB coverage of the show, and no entry at IMDB for the character or actress. Found nothing at Google News. The show's website might have some mention, but it does not make it easy to search. Fails verifiability and notability at this time. Lots of people are extras or have minor roles on tv. Lots of young people fantasize about being on tv. Edison (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, Please As G3, a hoax. Along with all of the other evidence, I just powered through a few episodes on InDemand and there simply are no female characters not listed on the J.O.N.A.S. page. This is a fans fantasy, proven in that she wrote the page herself.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 17:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost-blatant hoax. Wikipedia is not an appropriate outlet for adolescent fantasies. Drawn Some (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Hoax. It appears author has tried to write herself into the JONAS (TV series) [16][17]. Her very first edit on Wikipedia was to blank an article [18]. Not an auspicious beginning. Wow. SPA day ay Wikipedia. First the author and now the nominator. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I agree with Schmidt. Too funny. BioDetective2508 (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2009
Delete per nom. Schmidt, Drawn Some and I agreeing is more notable. Niteshift36 (talk)

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} 04:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hafrada

The topic of the article is a Hebrew word meaning "separation". A Google News search gets 0 hits ("Did you mean Hafada?"). A Google Books search gets 82 hits, most of which refer to the early 20th Century concept of separating the Jewish Agency Executive from the Israeli Govenment, a concept not referred to in the article; most of the rest are miscellaneous incidental uses. A regular Google search brings up this article followed by a large group of partisan blogs. The article's sources are mainly blogs, partisan political groups and opinion columnists, and any discernable facts or notable opinions in it would be at home in Two-state solution or Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. It's very hard to determine what exactly the article is supposed to be, but judging by the lede, it seems to be a POV fork of Two-state solution, aimed at creating an article for the fringe opinion that the two-state solution is something Israel is doing to the Palestinians.
Thus, Delete. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google news search only returns results from the past month. Google news archive search gives about 50 results. (the search link is w/o the word "forest" as apparently there's a place called "hafrada forest" which has nothing to do with Israel or Palestine) Rami R 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know about that service. I went through the 50 hits and could not find a single source from an actual media outlet that referred to hafrada in the sense the article does. Those that did were from partisan websites: electronicintifada, dissidentvoice, etc. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Move to Separation program (Israel). I agree that the Hebrew term isn't appropriate, and I'd proposed a move. Searching for "Separation program" Israel in Google News turns up mostly stories in the 2001-2004 period, when this was part of Ariel Sharon's political platform. Israel's unilateral disengagement plan is close to this article, but dated. The same idea keeps coming up in Israeli politics, with a new name each time. --John Nagle (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since, according to your google findings, Separation program (Israel) is simply a less common name for Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, wouldn't moving this article to the former make it a content fork of the latter? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if we say the disengagement plan is an example of this policy, aren't we just talking about an implementation of the old "land for peace" concept, set forth by UNSC 242 after the Six-Day War, which served as a basis for the peace treaty with Egypt, and all further peace talks? In Egypt's case, Israel removed all Israelis from Sinai, separating the populations - a necessary step in returning the land. In the disengagement case it removed Israelis from Gaza (and 4 settlements in the West Bank), and returned the land to the Palestinians, which is what they, and most of the international community, want. Removing settlers and giving back land can be seen as a sort of "separation" of the populations, but is obviously at the basis of the calls for a Palestinian State, and essential for the "land for peace" idea. This is why settlements (causing mixing of the populations, which furthers Israel's control over the territories, and reduces chances of a viable Palestinian State) are seen as so damaging to the prospects of peace. So, how is this a separate policy? What evidence is there of this being a separate concept, rather than a simple consequence/pre-requisite of "land for peace" (and so, in this case, an obvious detail of the Two state solution)? okedem (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to keep coming around, each time with a new name. Two-state solution says "currently under discussion by the key parties to the conflict, most recently at the Annapolis Conference in November 2007." Israel's unilateral disengagement plan is from Sharon, in 2004-2005. "Separation program" seems to date from the Rabin period, around 2002. Then there's West Bank closures and Separation wall, which are more about the mechanics of the process. Plus, of course, Israel and the apartheid analogy. Maybe we do need some consolidation. We might use "Separation program (Israel)" as the generic term, and do some merging and linking with the other articles. (There are even people talking about a "three-state solution", since Hamas (Gaza) and Hezbollah (West Bank) don't get along.) --John Nagle (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off - 2002 is Sharon's period, not Rabin (who was PM 1992-1995); Hezbollah is in Lebanon, not the West Bank (which is controlled by Fatah).

You don't show that such a program (separation) exists, and don't address my points at all. "Two-state solution" is the long-standing name for this idea. Has been for many, many years. I've seen no mention of this so-called "Separation program" in Israeli or international media (and I read enough of it), whereas the "Two-state solution" is used extremely often, and is clearly the ruling concept. The point is - separation isn't the goal, and there's no program for it. Two states are the goal, and steps like the disengagement are partial realizations of it. "Separation program" isn't a new name or anything. It simply isn't used, whereas "two state solution" has been used for years, and still is (you can search for it in google news, for instance, to see that). A google news search for "two state solution" israel yields a lot of results, whereas the same search for "separation program" israel yields zero results. okedem (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a classic case of applying a private/fringe interpretation to disparate issues. First off, there's no "program" by that name or to that end, as a quick search will reveal, either in English or in Hebrew. As a politically aware, newspaper reading Israeli, I can attest to encountering no use of this term or concept in Israeli media or political discourse. The only uses I've seen were with regard to specific issues, like the separation fence, or the disengagement. Never as a concept or program. Second, there's nothing unique or worthy of mention in the actions described - the fence isn't because Israel "doesn't like Arabs" or anything, but for security. Leaving Gaza is a part of returning occupied territory to the Palestinians (as they demanded). The article can't even seem to decide what its talking about - separation from Palestinians? From Israeli-Arabs? Inside the West Bank? Between Gaza and Israel? Between the West Bank and Israel? The article takes a simple Hebrew word, which doesn't imply anything, and tries as hard as it can to equate it with "apartheid" (as the quoted Palestinian, Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, a supporter of the One-State "solution" is trying to do with regard to Olmert's plan to withdraw from the West Bank). At most, "hafrada" is a term used by some political activists, mostly Palestinian, with unclear meaning. okedem (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per okedem. This seems like a POVfork on the topic of disengagement. If anything, It's is certainly not an Israeli plan but rather it is a racist policy of segregation by the world (Obama pushing hard lately), the Arabs in general, and the Israeli left.) The current article is WP:SYNTH --Shuki (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Separation program (Israel) per Nagle, and make any necessary adjustments pertaining to the dated nature of the discussion. CJCurrie (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First you would need to prove such a program exists, which would be difficult, as it doesn't. okedem (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are explicit references to that phrase.[19]. Also try looking for "separation" and "Israel", which will bring up material on the subject, plus some other stuff. Yitzhak Rabin's slogan "Us Here, Them There."[20] also expressed the concept. --John Nagle (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems here. One is that you're advocating creating an article on a word-pair because you found the word-pair in a single non-RS and because you interpret a phrase by Yitzhak Rabin to refer to it. The second is that you assume, without explaining why, that the content currently in the article Hafrada would be the proper content with which to fill such an article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per users Okedem and Shuki.Historicist (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Move to English title as the Hebrew term doesn't appear to be used enough in English to have that as the name of the article, but the sources show the notability of it so the article should be kept. Nableezy (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—no clear evidence that this exists as a known concept. The article appears to be a collection of synthesized indiscriminate information, consisting of loosely-related incidents and statements. Parts of the article could be merged into the Israeli West Bank barrier article or the Israeli unilateral disengagement plan article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This term is hardly ever used in English, and even in Hebrew it is not something specific to the topic of the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is probably salvageable material here, but this is not an actual concept. - Epson291 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a general rule, we shouldn't be creating articles using foreign language words on the English wiki, unless those are nearly universally used. This one clearly is not. It may be appropriate to create an article named Israel's Separation program, and some of the content here might be useful in that context, but a simple rename/move is not appropriate, per the arguments put forward by Jalapenos do exist, above. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:03, 6 July 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 as a band that is not notable. That the subject does not meet the primary notability criterion, i.e. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", means it does not satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Red Hot Nightmare

This is not a notable band. I searched for reliable sources mentioning them, and could only come up with one minor mention in Billboard:[21] Fences&Windows 18:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Composed of members of other notable bands, but they never, you know, did anything together. Lamest supergroup ever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Meets criteria six of WP:BAND, "an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." Umbralcorax (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Maybe... I need persuading that the members are independently notable, even if some of the members do have Wikipedia pages. Fences&Windows 19:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think TenPoundHammer's comments also need to be taken into account. Has the band actually done enough to be considered notable? Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 21:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hammer hit the nail on the head......a group that never did asnything. Starting to question the notability of their long albumn too. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ~~Keep~~ The User:DreamGuy posted, on my Talk Page a message 'advising' me not to waste my time contributing to this AFD discussion (to which he is contributing) with commentaries like 'Enough notable' and so. I want to have the opinion of WP users about this. Indeed contributions are to be justified, but in the case of My Red Hot Nightmare the claimed of the lack of any sound reason to have an article is quite rebutted by the 1 480 google hits !![22] Rirunmot (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Google hits is not the same as notability... I probably have 1500 Google hits, I don't expect anyone to write an article about me. Fences&Windows 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think Hammer is correct, this band isn't actually notable. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bar for article space should include at least having done something or another. Just trivia, which fails WP:NOT. The part of WP:MUSIC that might apply is pushing things, especially in light of the lack of any sound reason to have an article. DreamGuy (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bunch of guys formed a band, covered a Clash song, didn't work, moved on. (I'm sure we've all done that, I know I have). They may be individually notable, but this project deserves a mention in their individual articles, if that. Article claims that they are working on new material, but this isn't borne out by any news coverage, last mention was 2006. pablo_hablo. 23:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur with the Hammer. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 02:43, 1 July 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} 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Thomas Abbott

Doesn't seem nearly notable enough. WP:NOTE. Hhe is known for a single poem that was only mentioned in an article about another author's work. There are no mainstream reviews of this book and it never made any sales lists. The award he was given is not sufficiently notable. President of your university's poetry society is not particularly notable, either. Previously an AfD was withdrawn, but the reasoning was obviously shaky. Simply because a group of authors does not get enough attention from outside sources is certainly not a reason for inclusion. If the original author wants better coverage of Clutag Press, then perhaps this content should be part of that article. The author himself is clearly not notable enough. A quick google search of "Paul Thomas Abbott" gives only 175 results, many of which are automated Wikipedia references. This is only secondary evidence, but is pretty powerful. Hampton (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Seems to fail notability. Went to college, wrote a poem, promoted the poem. Edison (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, he does seem to fail the WP:BIO standard, but it isn't so cut and dried as the nominator states. Since about 1970, about half the winners of the Newdigate Prize have Wikipedia articles, and before that the winners include Donald Hall and Julian Huxley. Likewise, Oxford Poetry, which he edited, has a long list of distinguished editors, including Aldous Huxley, C. Day-Lewis and Kingsley Amis. That said, I wouldn't support notability on that alone, but this is just as likely a premature subject for an article than a totally unworthy one. It wouldn't surprise me if there is some in-depth coverage in one or more reliable-source publications without archives on the web. If one were found, this should be kept. Reconsideration (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison. Well put. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:23, 4 July 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 23:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thandiakkal

Delete unsourced one-liner about a surname with no indication of why it's notable. Surnames are not inherently notable. We're not the Indian telephone directory. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local family name. Salih (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established for this family name Corpx (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

&Delete Just as a name, it's not notable. If there were several notable people with the name, the it could become a List of people with surname Jones article, but not yet. Priyanath ^talk 02:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul's Missionary College

Non-notable school, no references found. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 13:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found two passing references to it: 1, 2, nothing on google books. Admittedly I don't have deep research experience for Malta schools, so if anyone can counter the bias, please do so. tedder (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment General consensus is to treat high schools as notable if they exist. A secondary school in Malta is equivalent to a high school in the US, so shouldn't it be a keep? -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was evaluating it as a secondary school/high school- I was just hoping for more solid confirmation that it exists. tedder (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Ah, ok. I've added some more credible sources to the AfD, someone can try to use these in the article, I'm not sure I can. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this page was created less than a day ago so it is way too early to be making judgements as to whether it will be possible to establish notability. I see no reason to depart from the practice that, with sufficient research, secondary schools are likely to have enough reliable sources to demonstrate notability and this article should be given time. TerriersFan (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some refs to show existence: student placed fourth in 1.5M race, Power point competition runners up (govt site), 2nd and 3rd place in a painting competition (govt site), listing at Private Schools Association, there's also some scandal about a priest at the school in Dailymalta.com that I don't want to put here. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources found by S7S. tedder (talk) 21:41, 30 June 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} 04:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox and the Hound (disambiguation)

Completely unnecessary disambiguation for a novel and its film adaptation; already better handled by the {{for}} template at the top of the top of the novel article and an appropriate normal link in the leads of the two films. Making users click an extra step on the novel is rather silly and bad usability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This disambig is mirror of disambig in ru-wiki. -- A^VB ^talk 14:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

And? Just because ru-wiki is doing it doesn't mean it should be done here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And? - this was only informatonal notice, comment, but neither reason nor argument for anything. -- A^VB ^talk 01:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unneeded orphan dab; hatnote for the novel on the film (base name) article suffices. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

orphan - it wasn't orphan - see articels's history, referenced from it. -- A^VB ^talk 17:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but it's an orphan now, and navigationally there's no reason for it not to be an orphan (nor for it not to be deleted). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - unneeded dab page per nom and JHunterJ. 19:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Not a bad thing, and an A for effort on the part of the creator, but this is one of those things that don't really need a DAB. The sequel to the first film is distinctive enough to not require it (it will be distinctively called its sequel), which leaves remaining the book and the movie - which themselves can be connected through hat notes. The sequel can also have a link from the page of its predecessor film. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:14, 1 July 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} 04:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymon Randolph Staton

Declined speedy, but what is actually said in the article is not notable--claims credit for products produced by companies where he worked, without indication of his actual role in creating or developing them. No sources in the article besides a single patent [23] whose importance is doubtful. I can't find anything else, in G, GScholar, GNews, or GBooks with or without the middle name or initial. DGG (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. That's all true but it doesn't even touch on the intricately detailed and utterly unverifiable BLP that makes up the article.--Talain (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not seem note worthy and only has one source. If someone were to find more sources and improve the article I would change my mindIrunongames • play 01:29, 1 July 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} 04:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kennedy (Programmer)

contested prod, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Does not pass WP:BIO RadioFan (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have added further information which I believe improves the article, as well as media reference by Larry Wall (creator of perl) as quoted in Australian ComputerWorld. Seems unfair to refute Adam's contributions to the Perl community, which include hundreds of useful modules that provide building blocks for greater things (several of which are mentioned).

Per the WP:AUTHOR criteria, I think he should qualify as being widely cited by his peers and known for originating significant techniques (eg. PPI's novel approach to parsing Perl 5). His contributions are also a substantial part of the collective work which is Perl's CPAN repository.

Stennie (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While I have no doubt that he has contributed to the PERL community, he is lacking any "significant coverage" by mainstream media. This guideline was set so that we do not have to set arbitrary guidelines each time notability comes into question Corpx (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that he has not contributed to the "PERL" community, but to the "Perl" community Maddingue (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per WP:AUTHOR, Adam Kennedy is regularly cited by his peers. He is responsible for creating a significant and well-known work: Strawberry Perl, one of the dominant distributions of Perl under Windows. Adam's development of the PPI framework allowed for the creation of Perl::Critic, which is considered to be of outstanding value to the Perl community. Adam has more than 200 distributions on the CPAN, making him the world's second most prolific Perl author by module count. Adam is a regular speaker at OSCON, OSDC, and YAPC technical conferences around the world. --Pjf (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adam Kennedy is cited in several important technical magazines (ZDNet, Linux Magazine, Computer World), especially for Strawberry Perl, which is more than appreciated by Windows Perl users. Strawberry Perl and its derivatives are an important project because they provide a way to use the dynamic language Perl on the Windows platform as seamlessly as on Unix systems, and allow to easily use the CPAN (which wasn't the case with ActivePerl). Adam also started the PPI project which goal was deemed impossible by more notorious Perl hackers. This module is now the foundation for other important modules and programs, namely Perl::Critic and Padre. Maddingue (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have moved the page from Adam Kennedy (Programmer) to Adam Kennedy (programmer) per style guidelines. Should the result of this discussion be a deletion, the closing admin should check for pages linking to the old title also. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:48, 6 July 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 Halo 2#Campaign. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik skull

Contested PROD. Article is about a specific item in a computer game, the item's description, and the item's location -- a clear infringement of WP:NOTGUIDE. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Again, fails WP:NOTGUIDE. This is what halopedia] is for, not wikipedia. Cheers, I'^mperator 12:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halo 2#Campaign. Halo 2 Skulls already redirects to that section, which contains some information on this article's subject. An individual item from one game generally doesn't merit a full article, but the brief description already given in that section should be sufficient.--Unscented (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the redirect for the same reason. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as above. Marasmusine (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halo 2#Campaign as a plausible search term. Otherwise, article is entirely game guide material. MuZemike 14:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and redirect. Apart from the first two sentences, the entire article is a cut-and-paste copyvio of http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Halo_2_Skulls. --McGeddon (talk) 13:47, 2 July 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 A7 by KillerChihuahua Cheers, I'^mperator 12:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTServ

direct copy from http://otfans.net/wiki/index.php/OTServ noq (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 30 June 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, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let Go (Aaron Carter song)

contested prod, no indication that this article meets WP:NSONGS RadioFan (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Flunks WP:MUS at this time. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above.--Serveux (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSONGS and WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs & . No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 02:38, 1 July 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. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hemingbrough United

Amateur village football team that plays only at the (notional) fifteenth level of the English football league system, well below the established bar for notability. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, lacks notability. Now I understand why I had trouble finding refs.--RadioFan (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet inclusion guidelines. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, very amateur league, almost certainly not notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable. Giant Snowman 17:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, never likely to generate wider interest or reach attention of reliable sources. Kevin McE (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable amateur club. --Carioca (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WITHDRAWN (non-admin closure). RadioFan (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Book (Jung)

~~contested redirect (to author's page), no indication that this book passes~~ WP:NB RadioFan (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this article and I believe it should stay for the following reasons:

The book is mentioned on many sources and returns about 30,000 results on google.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="Red book" jung&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

There is already a spanish article on the subject which has been created two months ago and was not nominated for deletion

User:Arthur_B(talk) 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep Carl Gustav Jung was one of the important scientists of the 20th century and each of his works should have own article. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn The work has been cited in others work sufficiently to indicate notability. Article needs some serious work though.--RadioFan (talk) 13:29, 30 June 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} 08:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planning planet

contested prod, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party references. Nearly all provided references are primary sources and those that aren't dont mention this company, RadioFan (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Possible to get an extension on the deletion date? I can get a mention on other websites, but I need some extra time. could I get an extra week? Piers1123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piers1123 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability needs to be verified by independent, reliable sources. See WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS for the applicable policy. Nothing comes up on the relevant google searches, so I doubt that reliable sources will emerge.--Talain (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. There's no indication that this specialized trade website meets either the business or website notability guidelines, but since it's obvious advertising, lawyering about notability is beside the point. The bulk of the article would appear to be vanity resumes of the principals: largest database of planners and project managers ... the number increasing at an average rate of one new member every 45 minutes.... over twenty years experience in the area of technology and software development.... twenty years of planning and project management experience.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the grounds in which you propose said things. However, if the subject does meet criteria in the future, seeing as the general intent is for deletion, would it be possible to re-make the page? As far as I understand it should be. Piers1123

Comment. Yes you can, but you will have to address the lack of independent, reliable secondary source coverage that comprises the concern of this AfD. If you just recreate it without improving it then it will be speedily deleted per WP:G4--Talain (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you wish, you or I can copy the current text to a subpage of a user page, where you can edit it until you think it is ready to be moved into article space. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you, I've created the subpage. Thanks guys. Piers1123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piers1123 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 1 July 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} 03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragoon X Omega and Dragoon X Omega II

These articles do not establish notability through citation of reliable sources. Also, Dragoon X Omega II copypastes content from an external site, http://datacrystal.org/wiki/Dragoon_X_Omega_II . Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources. Yes, they are extremely well made hacks, and probably quite popular, but that does NOT make them notable. I would love to see someone dig up some true RSes about the games, but as it stands now there's nothing on the pages that say they are notable. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly true per above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the hack may be well made, it still fails notability. Doing a quick check reveals not even 1 RS for notability. That it exists can be verified, but even so we don't have articles on every single fan-made work in existence.陣内 _Jinnai 18:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Hold on I'll see what I can do about getting articles that prove notability. I can get into contact with Sliver X -- if anyone knows of articles about DXO, it'll be him. If I can't provide any good ones, then I won't complain about the deletion (though I will die a little bit inside). Flonnezilla (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nevermind. I haven't been able to talk to Sliver X yet, and I've decided that I don't want to bug him about it. Go ahead and delete the article; if I get some good sources at some point I'll recreate it. Fair enough? Flonnezilla (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on I am just want to expanded it, even I am not good in English, I am just copy from copypastes and reedit it the article. If you wish to delete it, just delete it. Sorry about that. Woad85 (talk) 07:13, 1 July 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} 04:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bouwe Jan Hak

The article is a hoax. No player by that name played One-Day International cricket for the Netherlands or county cricket. Jevansen (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yep, hoax. Not listed on CA ([24] [25]). I'm not sure, but I don't think the Netherlands even had ODI status during the time of his supposed playing days... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 11:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Netherlands competed in the 1996 World Cup, but otherwise didn't have ODI status. So 'he' would have been 46 by the time his country first played ODIs and even then he couldn't have appeared in more than five. Not a very well thought out hoax. Jevansen (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Obviously a hoax, but in relation to your comment on age, Nolan Clarke was 47 when he made his ODI debut for the Dutch! Andrew nixon (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Cricinfo hasn't heard of him either, so it's unlikely that he played First class, List A or International. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 July 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 Iron (golf). \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Types of irons

Iron (golf) covers the subject already. It is doubtful that sufficient content exists to warrant a separate article. Indeed this article does not really expand on its parent. _wjemather ^bigissue 10:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what little non-duplicated content there is (basically the definition of 'muscle back' and the difference between split and full cavity backs) to iron (golf) and then redirect ~~there~~ as a somewhat likely search term. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Iron (disambiguation) is a much better redirect target as Wjemather says. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —_wjemather ^bigissue 10:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Article in question is basically just a duplicate. Cheers, I'^mperator 12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To me, despite being an avid golfer, types of irons doesn't automatically lead me to think iron (golf), but also iron (appliance), fetters, etc. and as such maybe Iron_(disambiguation) would be a better redirect target. _wjemather ^bigissue 13:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passive/KeepI am willing to work toward makeing sure this article has sufficient content and citeations over the next week. Right now muscle back and cavity back redirect there which gives it more hits than before i merged them a week ago. Pictures of them may also come in the future which will require a separate article. Username 1 (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Iron (golf) has plenty of room for pictures, doesn't it? Olaf Davis (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect - Pictures do not warrant a second article. As of now, there is no need for a separate article. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. This is duplicative. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 2 July 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 Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ringmasters of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus

This is a long-rambling list of repeated names, which appears pretty indiscriminate to me. What should be kept could be summarised in two lines in the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus article Ohconfucius (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about the circus. Although this poorly-executed table can be fixed (note: you can say "1871-78: Dan Costello" instead of Dan Costello Dan Costello Dan Costello Dan Costello Dan Costello Dan Costello Dan Costello Dan Costello), once it's fixed, it would fit into a paragraph. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but in prose form as Mandsford suggests, and with proper sources. Little value as a table, doesn't need a separate article.--RadioFan (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge Selectively merge. Wikipedia does not need a listing of everyone who held any significant job in every notable organization, because Wikipedia is not a directory and should not contain indiscriminate information. If references talk about how this or that ringmaster was important in the operation or development of the circus, then that is a logical part of the article about the circus. It could be argued that without the ringmaster, the show would not go on. But likewise, without the cook, the musical director, the roustabouts, or the locomotive engineer the show would not go on, and I do not expect to see an article listing every locomotive driver or head cook. Edison (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try to think of the ringmaster of a circus as being similar to the conductor of an orchestra, the producer of a Broadway production, the coach of a professional sports team, or for that matter, the key person in any organization. The ringmaster has somewhat more responsibilities for the show than the average employee. Mandsford (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont think the above comments question the importance of the position. The questions is, given the information available, is a separate article necessary. I, and other editors are not convinced that it is.--RadioFan (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without music, a circus performance would be dreary. But I question the need for a list of every band director in the history of every notable circus. Similarly, I do not see the need to list every employee who held that position in the main article. There are many types of notable organizations which do not have a complete listing of every functionary of importance equal to the ringmaster. An orchestra conductor is much more likely to have reviews with substantial coverage of how he conducted the orchestra. Likewise a coach of a notable team or a producer of a notable show will have articles about him. Where is such independent coverage of each ringmaster? He seems more like the stadium announcer at a (US) football game. Those who have references, like Dan Costello [26], should be mentioned in the main article about the circus and perhaps should have their own articles, if there is as much printed about them as Costello[27]. But being in Wikipedia is not an inherent right that comes with the top hat and whistle. Edison (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I am not opposed to a well-executed merger. This list is not indiscriminate. Miami33139 (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment If "ringmasters" of the Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Circus are entitled to inherent notability, and a listing of their names is not "indiscriminate information," does that extend to their counterpart ringmasters at the Hoxie Brothers and the Carson Barnes circuses, who to my eye were just as skilled and just as important to the performance? Edison (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This stuff is perfect for RB B&B's website, not wikipedia. I fail to see why should keep this article when there is no notability established for ringmasters of this particular circus Corpx (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that the consensus is that this doesn't merit an article on its own. As for whether the ringmaster stuff is mentioned in the article about the circus, that's no concern of mine. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and the content of an article is based upon what the most recent editor does. Mandsford (talk) 13:20, 1 July 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. This closure was quite difficult, as Budd has represented his country. However, the main issue is whether futsal is a sport in which representing your country is noteworthy. Had Budd participated at a futsal world cup or European championship, it may have been different, but to date he has not. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Budd

AfDs for this article:

Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league/competition. Also playing international futsal, doesn't pass any notability guidelines. The only source provided is from The Football Association which is reporting on one of it's own teams, no secondary verifiable sources are provided. Since it's last nom over a year ago, no edits of any substance have been made - only statiscal updates. --Jimbo^[online] 08:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as international futsal player, the main keep argument put forward in the previous AFD discussion. That the English team plays at a very poor level does not alter the verified fact that the subject has played full international sport for his country. CJPargeter (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete futsal is an amateur game, and I see no evidence he actually played in the highest amateur level for the sport (which is the Futsal World Cup, I think). And, more importantly, I fail to see any evidence of WP:N being actually met (no reliable third-party sources that cover the subject with considerable detail; a quick Google News search returns no hits at all, btw). --Angelo (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per the WP:ATHLETE failure (Shamrock Rovers' own website confirms that the league in question is not fully professional). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David O'Connor (footballer)

AfDs for this article:

Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE and no sources provided to pass WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete League of Ireland is not fully professional, so does not meet WP:ATHLETE criteria. Dancarney (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has played at the top level of Irish football, which is notable. Eldumpo (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the criteria set for sportsmen at WP:ATHLETE, as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. --Jimbo^[online] 07:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He plays for a professional club at the top tier in the national level - which more than meets the requirements of WP:FOOTYN. We previously reached consensus at WP:FOOTY (archived in WT:WikiProject Football/Archive 24#FAI League of Ireland players) that such players should be retained. Nfitz (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:FOOTYN is just an essay, the criteria for sportspeople is at WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 20:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does however reflect consensus in the project - as evidenced by the later discussion. Nfitz (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yet it hasn't been accepted 10 months later, which questions the validity of that discussion in which only a handful of members were involved. --Jimbo^[online] 21:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Umm ... sure it has. Besides, the media are reporting that LOI is fully professional. BBC last month reported that LOI "over the past several years transformed itself from a semi-professional league to a fully professional one.". Therefore it mees the criteria at WP:ATHLETE Nfitz (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, just associating with noteworthy people does not create the need for an article. Sports columns, with all their blatant hype and POV are not signs of objective noteworthiness--AssegaiAli (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Basically this article stands or falls on the argument that the FAI Premier Division is or isnt a professional league. In my opinion it is a professional league and sources back that claim up. The Irish Independent (the paper with the largestcirculation in Ireland) recently outlined that in the current finiancial crisis that some clubs may go bust or go semi pro - in other words they are pro now (just) "league is professional" or this source from EuropeanLeagues.com which states that "The eircom League of Ireland is the professional football league of Ireland". They are all good and well but a source from the BBC is more direct and states a league that over the past several years transformed itself from a semi-professional league to a fully professional one.. That source pretty much puts an end to the discussion. Also of interest here is this AfD where a FAI Premier Divison player passed the AfD on the basis that the league is professional.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays at the highest level in Irish soccer in a professional league. BigDunc^Talk 12:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence LoI is a fully professional league (actually all I've seen is mere evidence of the contrary). The fact it is the highest football level in a country is irrelevant, even Campionato Sammarinese di Calcio is a top flight but I doubt their players are actually notable because of that (they're all fully amateur, some of the teams, such as A.C. Juvenes/Dogana for instance, used to play in the Italian Promozione level until a few years ago!). --Angelo (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How can you argue that there is no evidence, when both BBC News and The Irish Independent say it is, with the references just above. Surely you should be trying to explain how they are wrong; not just ignoring two very significant sources. Nfitz (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, for instance, where you can find actual evidence some of the league teams are not fully professional (and you should be aware about that discussion, since it seems you've participated in it). --Angelo (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nfitz, dont try and impinge on the ownership of football articles by "senior members" of the FOOTY project. The FAI Premier League isnt professional until they say it is - it doesnt matter what the sources state - until they say its a professional league then it aint - got it! --Vintagekits (talk) 08:46, 6 July 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 due to WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Osbourne

Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE and no sources provided to satisfy WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete League of Ireland is not fully professional, so does not meet WP:ATHLETE criteria. Dancarney (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football player. --Carioca (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While we've had a lot of precedents for mostly professional Premier Division players being kept; this player has only played in the second tier, and doesn't pass WP:N. Nfitz (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the premier division is professional ~~for~~ not the first division.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Vintagekits is trying to establish that the FAI Premier Division is fully professional, due to one inaccurate report by the BBC. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Multiple sources you tool! x--Vintagekits (talk) 08:43, 6 July 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) · @279 · 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Markoff

AfDs for this article:

I was reading an article on a different murderer which was nominated for deletion. The arguments are varied but they all really point to deletion of this article. WP:N/CA was cited in another article. It really applies here. N/CA says "They are notable for something beyond the crime itself" NO, FAILS.. N/CA says "The victim is a renowned world figure, or immediate family member of a renowned world figure, including but not limited to politicians or worldwide celebrities." NO, MISERABLY FAILS. N/CA says "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual" NO, FAILS, robbery and murder is very common.

BLP1E was cited in another article. Philip is a one event person.

Another reason cited in another article was that this article is just about the murder and should either be deleted or merged into the murder of miss --- article.

For some reason, this article violates every known reason for an article. The only reason that could be used is that a lot of news mentioned it after the murder, but that would maybe support the murder article, but not the accused murderer article. Also some people may hate Jews or future doctors or hate Northeners or hate white people or hate possible Republican nuts who attend Karl Rove speechs, and want an article to show how bad White Northerner Jewish Doctor possible Republicans are but this is not a reason for having an article. For this reason, anyone who writes about racial articles (pro white or pro nazi), North/South/Confederacy articles (pro southern), Israeli/Gaza articles (anti Israeli), pro holistic or chiropractor articles or negative articles about Republican or positive Democratic articles should not vote because of conflict of interest. Amthernandez (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Murder of Julissa Brisman, the only reason he is notable. Jpatokal (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was brought here by a rather strange message on my talk page, which looks a bit like subtle canvassing, so I hope Amthernandez has warned the people who voted in the earlier deletion debate, the person who created the page and those who edited the page a few times as well. I have my own idea about whether this article is necessary on Wikipedia just like that, but in view of the message on my talk page and Amthernandez' handling of the Deletion Debate on Maria Belen Chapur I think I am going to swallow his WP:BEANS and say that I cannot vote - as a registered participant at the anti-birfer blog Politijab (North hate white people, Gaza, Democratic - take your pick)--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is charged with more than one crime, as is documented in the articleand has had substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. WP:BLP1E does not apply. Edison (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you read WP:BLP1E it also provides for people who recieve massive attention for a single event which is the case with Philip Markoff who recieved a large amount of lasting national attention and some international attention. It is also important to consider the crime as a whole and not just boil it down to simple robbery and murder. The crimes Markoff commited were unual and represent a new type of crime in the modern age of the internet. I'm not sure what you are getting at with the discussion of political bias in the last part of the nom but it is imporant to assume WP:GOODFAITH on the part of editors. Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While ONEEVENT is a good point, I think this guy's actions were covered thoroughly by the national media and I think that he has long term notability Corpx (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Is this a joke? BLP1E allows if massive attention for a single event. But this article is not about a single event, but a string of events. And I'm having a hard time deciphering what the nominator is even talking about but it sounds like someone is trying to use this AFD to make a WP:POINT about some unrelated issue. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly a straight delete is not the right way to go with this article. At the last afd I gave the opinion that the name should reflect the events and not the name of the perp. However I think that ship may have sailed.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator accuses all editors who want to keep this article of being prejudiced and tries to impose swingeing COI rules on this discussion. I would argue that this nomination totally fails to assume good faith in other editors and is thus invalid. Additionally, the circumstances of this case are certainly unusual, and Markoff meets the WP:GNG. Fences&Windows 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, this is a nomination that appears to be a reaction to the deletion of Clara Harris (criminal), which the nominator started:[28]. Fences&Windows 20:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge This is an example of the debate of what we want Wikipedia to be. If it is to be a respected encyclopedia, then this article should be deleted because it's just tabloid journalism. If Wikipedia wants to be the hip depository of the latest internet gossip, then the article should be a keep.

If one wants to follow the rules, the merging the article to the Murder of Jessica Brisman is the right thing to do. Markoff is not an accused serial murderer. He's probably just a robber with gambling debts that killed someone by accident. Some of the cited rules like BLP1E and NCA support not having a separate article.

If we look into the future and see how notable this person is in 2019, we will find that he's no more notable than the murderers of 1999. One murderer, convicted in 1999, is Tim Masters but you'll see that his article is a redirect to the murder article. Other much talked about murders of 1999 are little known now, as will probably be the case in 2019 for Markoff.

The most popular thing to do would be to keep but a logical thing to do would be to merge the article with the Murder of Brisman article and see in a few years time if Markoff is on the same level as criminals like John Hickley, Jr. User F203 (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's just notable enough to be included. It's not a badly-written article, and has some decient referencing (I think). I think a merge would be possible, but rather awkward as the article is quite long as it is now (or so I remember). He did receive massive attention nationally, and I remember some international stuff. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 21:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Internet homicide and Murder of Julissa Brisman. I really do doubt whether this bloke will have lasting notability, and the attention afforded to him by the blood-thirsty media outlets was as a result of a fairly standard crime of murder. The media hysteria due to the Craigslist post qualifies him for a mention somewhere, but given the acronyms WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP, merging seems like the sensible solution. I would also like to point out that just because you saw him on the news when it happens does note make the AfD about him a 'joke'. Also, charged with more than one crime doesn't make him exempt from WP:BLP1E. The policy covers people who are only notable for one event, and his standard robbery charges are not anything that would've resulted in a Wikipedia page. He got attention for the murder, his article was written due to the attention of the murder, not the binding and robbery of the robbery of an escort. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Backslash Forwardslash. WP:BLP1E. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:13, 7 July 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 Orting, Washington. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orting, WA Flash Flood of 2006

This flood didn't kill anybody, and seems of negligible importance. See WP:NOT#NEWS. No sources. Deprodded. Abductive (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Orting, Washington. Mandsford (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford. It was locally notable, so it should go in the article on the town, rather than have its own. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 30 June 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 vandalism. ... discospinster _talk 12:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Garnet

WP:HOAX No sources, a Google search turns up nothing. Eric444 (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Comment. This looks quite a bit similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmet Fitzgerald. I'm not really sure, if it's that one, because I only had a very brief look before the page was deleted, but it is similar to an AfD that closed pretty quickly. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit it; I am damn impressed with the chutzpah of these articles. The template, complete with two links to actual songs by an actual artist really helps bring the whole thing together. Entirely made up, there's nothing on google or anywhere else, so Speedy Delete and a suggestion that if the author could put this sort of effort into making real articles he'd be a hell of an editor.--Talain (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletenon-notable to the extreme and hoaxy at worst. At best, it fails WP:MYSPACE. References to Pixie Geldof, Chanelle Hayes and Kevin Spacey are walking violations of WP:BLP and could certainly be considered vandalism. This walled garden of articles, created by a single purpose account, should be removed at blinding velocity Ohconfucius (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has rather unhelpfully removed the BLP violations, so now the article does not reflect how the SPA had left it. I still think it should be deleted, as the article now says even less how notable this chappy is. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiyyath-ul-Salaf

Prod contested by suspicious SPAs; the deprodding was reverted multiple times by trustworthy people but it won't kill us to have a debate just on the off chance one of these users was merely a sockpuppet and not actually banned. Deletion concern is lack of available sourcing - no news, scholarly, or books hits from Google. I say weak delete, weak because as a foreign-language topic I can believe sourcing might exist in another language. Mango juice^talk 04:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I don't see anything for notability. Abductive (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, promotional, polemical... several reasons to delete, and I can't see a single good one to keep, unless someone finds some RS'ing. Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the prod reasons... fails GNG standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:23, 30 June 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 as a probable hoax. If anyone can find any reliable sources to state otherwise, I'll restore it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ito Pau

I declined the PROD on this because I know nothing about the subject — the article claims that he's a player for a fully professional Brazilian football club, and it provides a photo, but the PROD stated that "Hoax. There is no such Santos FC player, or any other Brazilian soccer player with that name". Because I know so little of Brazilian football, I won't delete by PROD; however, unless we can find references for him playing professionally, he fails WP:ATHLETE and all other notability criteria. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Carioca (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I said when I prodded the article, this is a hoax. The Fupédia website lists all players who competed in the Campeonato Paulista. in the Copa do Brasil and in the Série A, but Ito Pau is not listed in that site. Considering that he supposedly plays for Santos, he would have certainly played at least one game in one of those competitions, as his club participated of all those competitions during the years he supposedly played for the club, especially considering that according to Ito Pau's article, he played 198 games for Santos and scored three goals. Besides that, it is not common for goalkeepers to score goals, so, as Ito Pau scored three goals, if he was a real player he would be pretty notorious. Also, Ito Pau's name is very unusual for a Brazilian, it looks like the name was created by a non-Brazilian. Finally, a Google search found nothing about a footballer named Ito Pau, which is very odd, considering the number of games and the number goals he scored. In conclusion, it is certainly a hoax. --Carioca (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carioca; hoax player. Giant Snowman 20:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and almost certain hoax. Jogurney (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I'd be intrigued to know who the picture is really of..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quite likely to be a hoax. --Angelo (talk) 10:00, 6 July 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} 00:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in Virginia, 2012

It is now four years before the election will take place. This is a page focused only on speculation (because the news sources won't cover this race for a few more years.) We have no sources saying Webb or Davis are running for the seat. Also other similar senate races have not been introduced yet (the exception being Connecticut where there is activity going on and polling this early in the race) BrianY (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't even use WP:NOTNEWS here, because it isn't even news! Btw, the CT race is in 2010, so even if I don't like an indiscriminate list of Senate, House, Parliament election articles, it's still closer and has coverage. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the Dodd race (2010). Lieberman is up for reelection in 2012 (the article I was talking about) and that article is created. But unlike Virginia, there has been polling and news on that race because of the possibility of Lieberman getting ousted by a democrat or Lieberman switching back to the Democratic party to win reelection. BrianY (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I've got to take a look at that. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, usual WP:CBALL reasons apply. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no way we can maintain a sourced article on this topic. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Way too early to start predicting candidates. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as it was violated WP:CRYSTAL, but the article itself doesn't, as we know there will be a Senate election in Virginia in 2012 for the seat currently held by Jim Webb. I considered an AFD for North Carolina gubernatorial election, 2012 for the same reason, but instead chose to rewrite it. I rewrote this article so that it should merit keeping. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Muboshgu Gang14 (talk) 05:28, 6 July 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 23:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Say Anything (album)

Per WP:HAMMER Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiable info. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonexistent album. JJL (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP!!.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 05:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since neither the track list nor release date have been verified. Cliff smith ^talk 15:54, 2 July 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. Poor timing. –xeno^talk 03:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OxiClean

AfDs for this article:

HI! TEN POUND HAMMER HERE FOR OXICLEAN! ARE YOU TIRED OF SET-IN ARTICLES THAT SHOW NO SIGN OF NOTABILITY? SUBJECTS THAT SHOW NO SIGN OF COVERAGE IN RELIABLE THIRD PARTY SOURCES? THEN YOU NEED ARTICLES FOR DELETION!

(Seriously, I !voted keep in the last afd, but the sources are no good, and all I could find was press releases.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep I'm not sure how this nationally-marketed product couldn't be considered notable. If deleted Wikipedia would probably the only entity in the USA that doesn't know what it is. The article content seems mostly factual as well - rather than lobbying for deletion why not spend time to add some references if that is the concern?--Rich0 (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being "nationally marketed" is not a criterion for inclusion—rather the criterion is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Bongo matic 03:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As pointed out at WP:BEFORE, "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD". In order to establish whether "normal editing" can fix an article, some amount of diligence is required, but which the nominator doesn't seem to have done. A Google news archive search shows on the first page at least two reliable sources independent of the subject that provide significant coverage of the product: the Denver Business Journal and The New York Times. Bongo matic 03:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bongomatic. Lar: t/c 03:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rich0. JJL (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Come on, Hammer; you know better than this. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones

These are nothing but gigantic lists of unsourced, mostly unverifiable trivia, far afoul of WP:IINFO. Every single piddling detail is laid out in an excruciatingly long list, of interest to only Joel Whitburn and chart-geeks like me. Note that the Pop 100 list is also at AFD for similar claims. (I wouldn't mind mentioning, say, the longest-running #1 at the hot 100 page, but most of this is nothing but indiscriminate info.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Seems like listcruft to me. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Valuable statistical information about the Billboard Hot 100 across many decades. We'd do a disservice to our readers to delete such useful information. Parts, at the end, like "Additional Hot 100 achievements" is redundant and unnecessary. The rest should be kept. Orane (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That it's useful is not a valid reason for inclusion. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - First off, that it's "listcruft" also isn't a valid reason. Second, I do believe that my point about it's usefulness was contextualized. The pages brigs together decades of chart statistics across many genres and many artists and compiles the info into one succinct list. It is useful— for chart researchers, for regular readers, for skeptics. The information is referenced at the bottom of the article. Orane (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand the article is referenced (some third-party references would really help though), but even that doesn't make the article notable because of its connection to Billboard, as notability isn't inherited. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 04:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd advise that you stop basing all your arguments on essays. Orane (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You might want to follow that yourself, you have yet to provide and policy or guideline for keeping this cruft. Delete per nomination, just cruft and trivia. TJ Spyke 05:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment→ For starters, how about the fact that the list in not unsourced? References are provided at the bottom of the page from the various entries written by Whitburn, Billboard etc. I am almost 100 per cent sure that inline citations could be found for this article, because the individual articles for the songs contain respective sources. The article was written this way because editors thought it distasteful to have a note/source after each sentence in every single line. The editor who nominated the article claims that the info is "unverifiable", a characterization I totally oppose. They are verifiable! The list is neutral. He claims that only Whitburn or "chart geeks" would find the information useful? Why? How does he know this? And, the nominator brazenly emphasizes that this article/list is being deleted because other lists of similar nature are being deleted. The situation is totally different. This is the main singles chart in American music. Chart achievements for component charts like the Pop 100 etc do not carry the same level of notability.

The deletion policy states that reasons for deletion includes, among others, articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. Give editors, like myself, the chance to improve the sourcing. None of the guidelines outlined at WP is not provide evidence for the deletion of this page. It can't necessarily be considered "fan cruft", because the subject is of wide interest to a large group of people interested in music, as per the official website, the third party websites that I'll find, the numerous books written on the subject. The article needs to be cleaned up and needs improved sourcing. It does not need to be deleted. Orane (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All of this information was (years ago) cluttering the Hot 100 page and so I cleaned it up and spun it off. It's sourced and notable and clearly a big part of pop culture. FYI, under its previous title it was nominated in 2008 (result "keep). - eo (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orane. Notable enough to warrant a separate article. Europe22 (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list of trivia and statistical anomalies: Two Tommy James & the Shondells covers ("I Think We're Alone Now" by Tiffany and "Mony Mony" by Billy Idol) were consecutive number-one hits in 1987. is not a milestone worthy of recognition. I commend Ericorbit for having removed this material from the parent article, but he should have stopped there.—Kww(talk) 12:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment for the record, when I spun the article off, it was quite a bit shorter. It's not the easiest article to keep "pruned", as stuff gets added constantly :-) - eo (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment→ again, Kww, we could simply clean up the article, remove the excess, and source it. Orane (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these articles are trivia magnets. There are only a few statistics worth keeping, and, properly pruned and trimmed, a discussion of them can be kept in a parent article. Splitting them out invites uncontrollable growth.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment, well, again, if the consensus is to keep this article, I will be more than happy to work with whomever to decide which of the billion items should stay or go. I remove stuff a lot which many times leads to "why did you delete my item?" conversations, but if more than one person was keeping an eye on preventing it from becoming excessive, it would really help. - eo (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I agree; this article can be maintained in the public interest through patrol and discussion on which items are notable and which can be removed per non-notability. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]] (P.S. added on July 1 — eo and a few others have done a good job of patrol).[reply]

Keep This is of encyclopedic interest, and not really a candidate for merging back to the article about the Billboard Hot 100 in general; in addition, the article cites to verifiable sources (such as Joel Whitburn's well-known books). Although a page dealing with the 40 or so songs that had been #1 on the Pop 100 is up for deletion, this article bears no resemblance to that piece of crap. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - indiscriminate trivia, laundry lists, many entries unreferenced thus notability not established. Artyline (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Struck comments of banned user. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is useful information and like the other articles about artists' charts and statistics, should remain.--Don1962 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per eo, this should probably be in the Hot 100 page, but cant due to length.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Entries are referenced; note that at the bottom of article there is a bibiliography (which is used for items without inline citations); several items have inline citations. Article's edit page also has hidden note discouraging "indiscriminiate trivia" (e.g., miniscule trivia, e.g., the back-to-back No. 1 covers of the Tommy James songs in the Hot 100 stats article); patrol can be used to expunge inappropriate items. I would be open to conversations about improving this article (along with the afd nominator), which I think should happen before further afd discussion should the article be kept. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
Delete This is just a bunch of trivial information throw together. I dont think we should be tracking the movement of every album on a music chart. Bunch of a trivia suited for a site other than an encyclopedia Corpx (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This article does not nor never did "track the movement of every album on a music chart" (which indeed would be suited for a totally different site, such as Billboard). On the contrary, these articles — at least the country version — has records information organized by artist accomplishments, song accomplishments and album accomplishments ... not merely information randomly thrown together at one's whim but an article that is presented in a readable, easy-to-follow article with truly notable records and each having standards for their inclusion. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

That's the thing. The inclusion criteria is so arbitrary that an endless number of "achievements" could be added to this page, which results in a bunch of trivial information all in one page. I think some of the categories could be made into a new page, if sufficient notability is established, but I'm against throwing together a bunch of trivial chart movements into a page and labeling it as "achievements" Corpx (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corpx — While I would argue that most of the accomplishments are noteworthy, patrol can be used to eliminate those that don't meet notability muster. Still, if the article is kept (either through concensus or by default (due to a "no concensus" verdict), and remember, we're not at that point yet), would you be willing to assist with a general cleanup of the page and share your thoughts as to which "achievements" are notable and which aren't? (Remember also, this page is tagged for rescue.) [[Briguy52748 (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Ha, I'd doubt he, or the nominator of this AFD, would be willing to. Nowadays, editors are more interested in deleting a page, rather than working on it — which, if you think about it, makes template signs like {{clean up}}, {{unreferenced}} or {{notability}} obsolete. Corpx suggests that such lists of chart movements are non-notable and unsuitable for an encyclopedia. But I don't understand why everyone is against music statistics, while articles/lists about sports (NFL and NBA) statistics are celebrated, even featured. I know WP:WAX may apply here, but I still have to emphasize the bias against music-related articles. Orane (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't the best attitude to be taking, Ozone; saying we're biased just because we don't agree with your point of view. While I still stand by my vote, it looks like this will end up being "no consensus" anyway. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Orane", not "Ozone". And I'm not saying that you guys are biased because you don't agree with me. I'm saying that people may be biased because they cite all music/chart statistics as "laundry lists" and "indiscriminate trivia", while sports stats are treasured. Orane (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOULD YOU IDIOTS LISTEN TO YOURSELVES? Think about what you are saying. First off implying that Wikipedia is anything but a guilty pleasure is stupid. This place is NOT I repeat NOT at all credible as a source for information. It is not like an actual encyclopedia in its authenticity. Second, lists and facts aren't useful at all, it's true. Sorry. But they should be kept because they are one of the biggest reasons people go on this stupid site in the first place. Oh, look, such and such a show made a reference to something but I can't quite figure out what... It used to be on this site until some self righteous jackass decided to delete it. Those factoids and interesting tidbits aren't useful but they are entertaining and do educate on a minor level. Are you going to just blindly say that knowing something about a current trend or an old movie or interesting factoid is more useless than a large page on some WWI (Look it up but that's world war one in case that page was deleted for all you kiddies) general that NOBODY remembers? In all honesty everybody who follows the trivia rule to such an extensive length needs to be forced into surgery to have a sense of humor installed (irony, see WWI directions)If visitations to Wikipedia begin to fall off it will probably be due to the widespread deletion of the interesting factoids. Like how YouTube has a lot of people leaving because of all the deletions music videos and files. If you take way what people like then ALL that you are doing is hurting the site. Stop pretending that being an edit Nazi is a good thing. It isn't. All you are is annoying and you should really consider shoving your computer out of a window and spending some time, a very long time for some of you, away from it until your douchiness is gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.77.146 (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP user 98.246.77.146 — You may want to read the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions article; while I understand you are frustrated, I seriously doubt your comments add anything constructive to this discussion. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

I disagree, while he lost me at the word Nazi, I thought everything leading up to it was one of the best synopsis of the inclusionist argument I've read, and I'm serious. IP, don't worry, this is clearly heading to a no consensus, defaulting to keep. BTdubs, WP:AADD is an essay, not a policy.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 14:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CastAStone — Remember, I voted to keep (and my opinion hasn't changed); I was just concerned about the IP contributor's tone and that his argument was more emotional based rather than a legit reason to keep, which is exactly what the essay in question is about; and yes, I understand that said essay is NOT policy. His argument about people no longer using this site because "X" article (or series of) were deleted could be better stated in an essay that is not connected to a specific afd discussion. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Strong Keep Other than noting that absolutely nothing about this article's status has changed since its nomination for deletion failed last year, I'll repeat the post I made in the previous discussion:

The long history of "chart-watching" is a central part of Billboard Magazine's purpose and appeal. This history is reflected in a succession of encyclopedic books devoted to the topic, which have been published and updated for more than three decades (see: http://www.recordresearch.com/), as well as popular countdown shows from "Your Hit Parade" to Casey Kasem. The [then-]recent news coverage of Kanye West vs. 50 Cent "showdown" over whose album would debut at #1 indicates that this general interest in "chart achievements and trivia" continues. Artists such as Mariah Carey and The Beatles have released best-selling compilation albums whose contents are entirely based on the types of statistical accomplishments archived on this page. Numerous topics such as the Academy Awards, baseball, and television ratings have separate and subsidiary "list"-style pages on Wikipedia (i.e. [[29]]; [[30]]; [[31]]). This article is well in keeping with those, and others.One Sweet Edit (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – These chart achievements are not of interest solely to Joel Whitburn. His compilations has been noted and referenced in such books as Interpreting popular music by David Brackett (p. 35), The new blue music by Richard J. Ripani (p. 14), Popular music since 1955 by Paul Taylor (p. 45), Hit records, 1950–1975 by David F. Lonergan (p. vi), The seventh stream: the emergence of rock n roll in American popular music‎ by Philip H. Ennis (p. 404), and so on... Multiple third-party sources demonstrate sufficient notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An acceptable compiled list and sub article of the main. Sources certainly do exist and Billboard is the industry leader of exactly this information which feeds an mmense and worldwide music industry. Inline cites would be lovely and that is considered regular editing and clean-up work. -- Banjeboi 06:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic, split from the original article do to size, and has references, plus a set standard on what gets included and what doesn't. Dream Focus 08:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Have any of you ever had a top hit in the music industry? My guess is no, so in case nobody has informed you yet having a number one hit is a huge accomplishment. To keep a song as number one for a continued length of time is incredible. I happened to be googling "Who has the most number one hits of all time?" [which was a questions google recognized, obviously meaning it is commonly asked] and this is the first website it brought me too. This list gave me exactly what I was looking for and then some. True, some of the information is not cited. BUT why destroy all of the information that is correct rather than correct or delete only information that is not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.123.198 (talk) 18:12, 6 July 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 G11 Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National shoe day

Non-notable, self-promoted entity violates WP:N and WP:ADVERT mhking (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no apparent news coverage[32] indicates that this is a non-notable event, the main contributor has a CoI, and the tone is overly promotional. It would probably meets several speedy criteria.Synchronism (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that too, but if they wrote the copied site, is it still a copyvio?Synchronism (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah. Regular delete then per your above reasoning. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 04:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Dechaine

I had to gut this article as it's a BLP that was riddled with unreferenced paragraphs. See history for what was there. Article violates WP:BLP1E, and thus should be deleted. لenna vecia 02:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Even after stripping down, this is a problematic BLP which is a 1E. we'd be better off without it. Lar: t/c 02:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ⟳ausa کui ^× 00:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We really need a way to find these biographies automatically or with better efficiency.... --MZMcBride (talk) 03:02, 1 July 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. I'll close this early owing to the WP:BLP concerns and per WP:SNOW. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ferguson and Erickson

This fails WP:BLP1E by a wide margin and also the content is so far from Wiki standards that I do not believe it can be saved in any form. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for BLP's sake. Clear BLP1E article. The tone is not encyclopedic, the formatting is a mess, there is a single reference for the whole article. لenna vecia 02:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - should really be snowball deleted because it is a quite serious violation of WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per reasons given, this article needs to not be here. Lar: t/c 02:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. The faster this is gone the better.--Talain (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pretty obvious. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Unworthy encyclopaedia article. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I'm fairly certain this is also plagiarised (like most of the articles from this user appear to be), but have not been able to find the source. Leaving the issue of plagliarism/copyvio aside, though, I agree this article fails BLP, verifiability and NPOV. Sarah 01:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Brian Reading (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Yarris

Poorly sourced biography that fails notability requirements per WP:BLP1E. لenna vecia 01:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Or redirect to Innocent Project. Subject isn't notable. This has "BLP nightmare" written all over it. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom and MZMcBride this is not an article we should have. Delete Lar: t/c 02:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet BLP guidelines. INsufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as failing BLP. Also note Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Danras, this and most, if not all the articles from this user blatantly plagiarise other sources without attribution. The user has been blocked indefinitely pending an adequate explanation. Sarah 00:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above ⟳ausa کui ^× 01:53, 2 July 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 Humbug (album). \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crying Lightning

Violates WP:CRYSTAL mhking (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. -WarthogDemon 02:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Humbug (album). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album article as described above; no evidence this is a notable single as defined by WP:MUSIC. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Keep. It's confirmed, and the first single by a major band on their new album. There's artwork, release dates, and forthcoming b-sides. As per: http://arcticmonkeys.com/news.php?id=314 User:rexplosion —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Absolute Redirect as a plausible search term. Just because it is confirmed doesn't automatically make it notable. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 10:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, this will chart top 10 in the UK charts, and is by one of the biggest British bands around. If this is not deemed notable, then Wikipedia may as well delete 80% of articles. Again, ~~VERY VERY VERY STRONG KEEP~~. --Rexplosion (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The above is a double vote, so has been struck out. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Rexpolsion, "this will chart top 10 in the UK charts"? How do you even know this? I'm a big Arctic Monkeys fan myself, but what you just said violates WP:CRYSTAL. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment. Well, yeah, but if this article isn't notable then Wikipedia should cull 80% of articles. Do you want me to find 30 less notable articles than this? I could, in 5 minutes. Rexplosion (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. -WarthogDemon 01:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. And user:Rexplosion, if you want to nominate those 30 less notable articles, I'll probably vote delete for them too. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete it then. It'll be back Monday anyway, after it is debuted. --Rexplosion (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, Warthog, I direct you to the Star Trek argument on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This comes down to notability. And it is clearly notable. --Rexplosion (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that page has unfortunately changed too much from its original intent. The basic arguement that "Other articles exist at Wikipedia which violate the guidelines, so this one should to" is always an invalid arguement. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was never intended to be equivalent to inherent notibility; that is the concept that in very limited cases, some class of subjects are considered inclusion worthy even if references are limited. High schools, professional atheletes in major sports, Fortune 500 companies, state and national legislators, are all generally considered "inherently notable" even if some individual examples don't appear at first glance to meet the general notability criteria. However, this idea is ONLY applied in these limited cases. Individual songs on record albums are NOT among this limited set of "inherently notable" topics, however, and must abide strictly by WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Which is why the original meaning of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here; finding random other articles which have no bearing on this arguement at hand is not terribly helpful here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So you would have Season 8 of a Star Trek series up before Season 7 barely begins? -WarthogDemon 04:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me, or have we gone way off-topic? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Despite being confirmed by the band per Rexplosion's link to their official website. I still think it's a little too soon to make an article for this song. There's a few Google news links about the announcement of the single, but that's pretty much it. I'd wait until its radio premiere or we get a tracklisting for the single (ie the b-sides. Most Arctics singles have at least two or three) before making an arcticle. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hate to push the issue, because it's really not important given that it will have an article, either post-airplay or post-release. But it complies with WP:CRYSTAL. Anyone who knows the music scene and the Arceys' chart history will know, as the first single off a new album, it is "almost certain" to chart, probably in the top 10. They are one of the biggest bands in the UK, and this is pretty much accepted. There will be more information in the coming days and weeks about it so I think that the only reason that you could have for deleting this article would be for not enough information about it, with regards to things like music videos, tracklistings, and anecdotal evidence behind the history of the song. --Rexplosion (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you really understand WP:CRYSTAL. "Anyone who knows the music scene..."? Who is "anyone"? Information like that has to be sourced. And you can't guarantee that a single is going to chart, even if that's what ends up happening. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep it for now as it is and then add more to the article as information becomes available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.221.196 (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW by User:RegentsPark at 18:14, 1 July 2009

Mahesh dilemma

Article was PRODded once as OR, and contested by an IP with no explanation. Another PROD was added later, and I was seconding the PROD when I saw the earlier one, so bringing here instead. This is at best a term paper, but is entirely original research that is lacking in context, but based on the name of the contributor, this article is about his thoughts on a choice between life and intellect! There are a couple of Ghits, but nothing relevant. Delete SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Mahesh should take his dilemma somewhere else. Priyanath ^talk 01:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, far, far away from here. Gtadoc (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No dilemma as to the fate of this article: delete. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:MADEUP. The few Google hits I found are about different subjects. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and per common sense.--Talain (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Salih (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and/or personal essay. JIP | Talk 06:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Need to be improved instead of deletion - The question will be asked anytime sooner than we think, and building a good article, consensus, knowledge on this subject is important for humans. Talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- It's an interesting question but this is not the place to discuss it - see No Original Research. Wikipedia is not for building knowledge on a new subject - we only report what has been built elsewhere and can be verified from independent reliable sources.JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. An early close would be justified for this obvious case. Abecedare (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as possible. Quite an example of WP:NOR. --Junius49 (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per HOAX and MADEUP. Certainly this concept is not new as the life v/s intelligence debate has been on since the birth of Artificicial Intelligence in the 60s. Seems like a mashup of some documentaries I saw on Discovery. --Deepak D'Souza 06:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking pretty snowy. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will a passing admin look at the snow here and take some action? -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fotis Kokotos

Article written by Mr. Kokotos himself, conflicts with notability and self-promotion guidelines. Constantine ✍ 01:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, reads like a personal/vanity page. Doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Kimon^talk 20:46, 30 June 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 Strider. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 20:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striders

Wikipedia is not a fan site. mhking (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as in-universe trivia. a little insignificant 01:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Strider. I find it odd that it isn't even mentioned in Creatures in the Half-Life series.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Strider. Wikipedia is not a game guide, but the title is a plausible search term. Just not for this content. JIP | Talk 06:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to strider as plausible search term. The reason why its not covered in Creatures in the Half-Life series is probably because its covered in Combine (Half-Life). -- Sabre (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Strider per others, though I've made sure that the Combine article is linked from the disamb page to provide a one-click route to the info. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Strider as a plausible search term, but for different end results. MacMed^talk _stalk 14:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above is very sensible, particularly as the article where they're featured is now linked. Someone another 15:10, 30 June 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oakhouse Foods

I don't think this passes WP:N. gordonrox24 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence yet offered for notability. Daniel Case (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meals on Wheels? Seems to me that this is a minor example of a business providing the service. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would go for that.--gordonrox24 (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meals on Wheels, The article as it stands seems to only be a place holder for the criticism section. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it used to be longer, but since it was cut down the only sourced part that remained was actually the criticism it seems. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I missed when I reviewed it the first time that it had more information. I have restored the deleted content since no reason was given for the removal. Upon 2nd look it does appear to be notable. 13:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or merge. Seems somewhat notable based on news coverage [33]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed^talk _stalk 21:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as fails WP:CORP. Notability to come one day, perhaps, but it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per CoM's Google News search plus this additional Google News search from older media coverage: [34]. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if someone is willing to add the references, if not, delete. The topic is notable, there are a couple of news stories and company profiles available on Google news search, thus meeting WP:CORP. Drawn Some (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, actually applying the references doesn't matter to determinig if they exist or notability is met. It's helpful, but not required. -- Banjeboi 09:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. An acceptable stub, adding the history of the group's start and benchmarks of expansion as well as the likely government grants/funding would be logical. -- Banjeboi 09:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christie Vilsack

Non-notable spouse of former Iowa governor, no independent references currently used. Marcusmax(speak) 00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article appears to assert notability, and we have other articles on "First Ladies of Iowa". a little insignificant 01:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N, and half the article is about here husband and family. The only claim to notability directly relating to her is the invite to speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. a little insignificant 01:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirector Merge to hubby's article. Notability is not inherited. Spouses, siblings, parents, and children of political leaders get lots of derivative press mentions. In my view, that does not amount to notability. If they use the opportunity thus afforded them to do things on their own which make them notable, then they should have their own articles. If they are mentioned in the press merely for being the politician's family member (rather than as, say, an author, a foreign agent, an entrepreneur, an artist, an entertainer or a criminal), then they should similarly be covered only in the politician's article. Edison (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Only reason anyone has heard of her is because of her marriage, not because of her achievements. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited, no non-trivial sources for her without her husband in the picture. Also there appears to be a lot of these first ladies/gents - List of current United States first spouses with pages of their own. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:01, 3 July 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. Recommend a new AfD to garner more consensus if concerned. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ID Flow, Label Flow and Lobby Track

Three software products from the same company. Little evidence of notability for any of them. Sgroupace (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. These articles appear to be produced from a text template. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Articles are hand-written from several sources. Products are referenced on other significant pages. Speedy deletion was already refused. Nuschler (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @279 · 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Piper (trader)

No demonstrated notability or extensive media coverage and even still would seem to be a WP:BLP1E at best; not one other article links to this one. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:52, 23 June 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 00:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minimal coverage, everything is based on one event, not enough to establish notability. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:39, 30 June 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 Robert Steven Rhine. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Girls and Corpses

Prod was removed with claim that "editor in chief is notable and this is his work" -- notability is not inherited, so that's an invalid claim (and the guy doesn't look notable either, frankly). Other than trivial mentions in some other works and award that wasn't really an award, there's nothing notable about this. DreamGuy (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robert Steven Rhine, who, according to that article's lede, is largely notable in connection with this magazine. JJL (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse B. Watters

Notability not established --Like I Care 23:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:18, 30 June 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 Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui#Primary schools. content under the re-direct for the merge to be performed. This has been open for two weeks with no one contesting a merge. The content is not being deleted and continued AfD is not required for mergers. StarM 02:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S.K.H. Tseung Kwan O Kei Tak Primary School

Non-notable primary (grade) school - fails WP:N. Usual practice is to redirect to article on school district, but in this case there is no school district article to be a redirect target. ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect ~~to Tseung Kwan O~~. There is sourced, mergeable content and this is normal practice for primary schools outside North America. TerriersFan (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the relevant section of the parent organisation, Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui#Primary schools (whence the "S.K.H.") is probably a more appropriate merge target. Randomly merging content to traditionally-recognised placenames which don't reflect actual administrative divisions will produce very confusing results. cab (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no problem with a merge to Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui#Primary schools. TerriersFan (talk) 02:06, 27 June 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 00:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Onethirtybpm

No indications of WP:WEB notability whatsoever. Prod nom (by two editors) was challenged by single-purpose-account creator. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find any indication that reliable sources consider this a notable website. Lots of blog entries but no discussion of the site in reliable sources. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Doesn't appear to be notable. Brian Reading (talk) 00:37, 3 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WestNet Wireless

Article went through a spate of speedy tagging and untagged upon its creation in 2007, with the creator asking for more time. The company does not seem to be notable; Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Abductive (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete solely due to the narrow scope of notability (if there's any). Looks like they only provide services in one city, so any notability will contained to the city Corpx (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:53, 3 July 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E.d.i.t

Fails notability/product placement. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any independent sources. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I cannot find any RSes (using this search [35]) that can establish any notability of this piece of software. Creator has not made any strides to provide any, either, which doesn't help us in establishing it. MuZemike 00:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely speedy delete candidate as obvious advertising: ... the CCD sensor is now able to render the full dynamic range from the image and provide optimal results with sharp details and accurate color readings. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Denton S.C.

There doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about this barrister. Sure, he's headed a few legal groups but there doesn't appear to be any secondary sources on him. The article's tone is inappropriate in places and is likely written by someone with a WP:COI. MvjsTalking 09:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur that there seems very little that makes him notable, and it wants badly for secondary sources. It's clearly been created by someone close to the subject, and given the Rumpole link between the creator and the subject, I think it could well be autobiographical. Murtoa (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some of the more non-notable elements of the article and requested sources for some of the claims. Murtoa (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I found many Google News results, but the first page only has trivial mentions, and everything after the first page is about other David Dentons (esp. those in South Carolina). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:26, 6 July 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pop 100 chart achievements

AfDs for this article:

Delete. With the discontinuation of the chart and only four years of "achievements", I recommend deletion of this list of trivia. There was no consensus on a previous AFD Wolfer68 (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no truth to the rumor that Casey Kasem looked at these statistics and said "Wow, this is really boring!" This type of compilation of trivia about songs that had been #1 wouldn't work even for a longstanding Billboard chart. Mandsford (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but a big list of trivia. Never mind that there're other similar lists, they should be axed too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral but lean toward delete — While I voted to keep similar articles on the Hot 100 and Hot Country Singles charts (because of those charts' long-term notability and availability of sources), the issue with this article is not about sources. The Pop 100 chart is relatively short-lived and has fewer notable accomplishments relating to writer, producer, etc.; compare that to the articles about the Hot 100 with 50 years and Hot Country Songs which is 65 years old; there is no similar article currently for the R&B chart, which is 67 years old and whose stats have similar verifiability through Billboard magazine and other sources (including but not limited to Joel Whitburn). I would support keeping articles about the Hot 100 and Hot Country Songs, and if they existed the Billboard 200 (albums chart) and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs charts, but not much beyond that. (BTW — any arguement from Casey Kasem, whether he said it or not, is not a valid argument). [[Briguy52748 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
Delete - no real encyclopedic value - the chart only ran for about 4 years... far too brief to gather and compare statistics in the grand scheme of pop music. - eo (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDGES with Mal Fletcher

written like an advertorial, there is very little real coverage of this TV show [36]. google search mainly reveals directory listings. LibStar (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find any sources. Blank, blank, and trivial listing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Leadership Consultation

a non notable event with no third party coverage [37] LibStar (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This is apparently some kind of conference for church leaders, a fact that its name (that smells like a cow pasture) fails to convey clearly. A general Google search yields only 317 hits, some of which are just the usual malarkey you'd expect from a name like that, and none of them that I found look like independent reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I found some Google News and Google Scholar results, but the Scholar results are primary sources and the only News result doesn't constitute significant coverage. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Function Records

Non-notable small record label, with only 19 releases in its entire 8-year history. Not even a hint of notability, and no sources, reliable or otherwise. Calton | Talk 14:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wanted to keep it, but I can't find much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See no reason to delete this. Very real/valid record label. Hard to find a compilation of info as conveniently compiled as this.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources means that notability is not established. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:06, 30 June 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} 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formosa's law

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Formosa's law

The sole source supporting this article is a one line entry in the Jargon File ([38]). I do not think this is enough to support a verifiable encyclopaedia article that is more than a basic dictionary definition of the term. I can find little in the way of third party sourcing for further expansion of the article, only some forum and blog mentions, a couple of copies of the Wikipedia article ([39] and [40]) and a mention in a pay to publish novel ([41]). There is no evidence of the significant coverage by reliable sources required by the general notability guideline. Guest9999 (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per ChildofMidnight's law. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki - If it's a dic def, let's put it over to wiktionary. Grandmartin11 (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a dictionary article giving translations, etymologies, parts of speech, and suchlike of an idiom. It is an encyclopaedia article, about a concept, and the title is not even idiomatic. Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dictionary definition is not enough content to be an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ydouthink90 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 6 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plw entertainment ltd

Promo article on small record label, with much name-dropping but little actual evidence of notability/real-world impact. Speedy declined due to the name-dropping. Calton | Talk 15:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search across major library databases revealed no mentions in indexed newspapers, magazines, or journals. --Laser brain (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP - not notable. Orderinchaos 11:30, 6 July 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Birgunj

A non-notable beauty pageant which took place only thrice in last 15 years. No reference at all. A minor contest which does not need a separate article. External Link, which is supposed to be official website of the contest, leads to a site which is reported attack site by AVG antivirus. Even Google Search warns for harmful nature of this site. Hitro 17:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not clear whether this pageant only took place three times in the last 15 years, or whether the article writer only had results from three of the pageants, but this pageant does not appear to be notable, and I also got an "attack site" warning regarding the only source provided. For all intents and purposes, this information is unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:50, 1 July 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. —harej (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Pokhara

Non-Notable leg of the national event which does not require a separate article. Unreferenced, may be original research. External link, at the time of my editing, leads to a closed site. Hitro 17:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm sure it has local coverage. Notability is borderline, but it seems okay to me to include. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local coverage by a local paper isn't compelling. Their job is to cover local events. Lack of notability is why nobody else covers it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real notability established and it very much looks like they're using the WP page as their group's web site Corpx (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-open The pageant is going to held again this year after a decade so I think it is relevant for the page to form back. ^[1] ^[2]Yuto1 (talk) 18:39 (UTC)

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 Neighborhoods in Detroit. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zone 8, Detroit

Non-notable. The terminology "Zone 8" appears to be nearly non-existant, and I can find exactly zero references in any reliable sources. In addition, the article itself contains at least three mutually contradictory geographical descriptions of the neighborhood, leading me to believe that the term, even when it might be used, is hazily defined. Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Well, I can verify that there is an area known as "Zone 8" [42], [43], [44] [45] and that there is a gang called "Zone 8" [46], [47] although of them link the two - although it would seem logical. Also none of these sources are reliable, except perhaps the first which may or may not be. One source (I didn't save the link though) seemed to imply it was related to the 8 Mile Road that Eminem sang about. Our article on that road does mention it as a dividing line between affluent white areas and poor ghetoised black areas. All this points in the direction that there is an underlying truth to this article that might be verifiable in reliable sources (although obviously this does not apply to the contradictory statements). I've labelled all this as "comment" because I honestly can't decide which side of this fence I'm sitting on I want to get down on. If reliable sources can be found then that will probably move me to a keep. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources could be found, I would like to keep it also. I believe your first source is reliable, but it's reporting on the title of a book (which may actually refer to the gang); the others are not, IMO, reliable sources. My educated guess is that "Zone Eight" is a fairly new term used by a small number of people for a hazily-defined neighborhood. It doesn't yet seem to be in wide enough use (as evidenced by the lack of reliable sources) to be considered encyclopedic. That could change in the future, granted, but the use could also wither and die. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note: I have left notes at Talk:Detroit [48] and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Michigan [49] requesting input to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a quick google search, and found only "mentions" and nothing that really described it. Suggest leaving the placeholder to Zone 8 on Neighborhoods in Detroit. Parkerdr (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still haven't found any unambiguous reliable sources, so redirect or merge to Neighborhoods in Detroit. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a delete or redirect to Neighborhoods in Detroit. There don't seem to be adequate sources for this to stand as its own article. cmadler (talk) 14:16, 30 June 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. Uncontested deletion; this was a very brief article about a SourceForge software project that contained hardly any context to give anyone a clue what this was about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Database integration tool

Non-notable software product. It hasn't even been downloaded once from SF yet. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. Looks like a speedy candidate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable software project, lacking 3rd party refs, created by single-issue user. Dialectric (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Paul (businessman)

does not meet notability criteria for biographies, and article appears to be self-written, unverifiable advertisesment for Mr. Paul. No reliable sources provided to attest to notability as "reputation doctor," which appears to be self-description. Jay Tepper (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete He is at least mentioned in the articles linked to his page. The page does appear to be a self written promotion, though. Fuzbaby (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen this guy a lot on tv. The article also a lot of sources that reference him. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My concern is twofold: the notability issues, as I indicated in the nomination, and the fact that his article is obviously written by the subject of the article (as it contains much extraneous and unverifiable information), and is blatant advertising. Were this article to not be deleted, very little of this article could be retained, as there is no independent sourcing to flesh out such an article.Jay Tepper (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep with revision. Probably noteworthy, but needs substantial revision and verification. Ezratrumpet (talk) 04:44, 29 June 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 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COI, while obviously not encouraged, is not a reason for deleting an article. Media coverage on Mr. Paul is easy to locate, so he passes WP:BIO. The article needs a good rewrite, but it does not deserve to be deleted. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although Mike Paul appears in often in media coverage, it seems to be mostly for the purpose of subject-related PR quotation and/or opinion. Based on the article's references, Mr. Paul is not the sole subject of "significant coverage" in multiple independent sources, but rather appears alongside other individuals receiving extensive media coverage. As such, there may be some notability issues in Category:Public_relations_people. LagrangeCalvert (talk) 02:13, 30 June 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 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dellwood Country Club

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

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

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

This article appears that has been deleted four time times only to be recreated, twice as Dellwood country club. It does not appear that the creator ~~is interested in establishing notability or referencing~~ has attempted to establish notability or reference the article. No notability is noted other than designed by A.W. Tillinghast, and the course is already listed in the List_of_Tillinghast_courses. Part of the article could possibly be merged into Adolf Zukor, but I do not believe it is notable enough. Click23 (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who posted the information. The only reason it was edited so many times was because i'm new to posting in wikipedia. Wasn't sure what i was doing, but i think i have the hang of it now. The information that i posted is real, factual and informative. Why would you want to delete it? Isn't this what Wikipedia is for? If someone said, hey, i want to know some information about the Dellwood Country Club, why shouldn't Wikipedia have information on it? It's a club that has an interesting history and that's what i've posted. It also happens to be designed by the famous golf courses designer A.W. Tillinhast. Not exactly sure what the problem is with the post.... please explain further or please leave the post alone.

Wikipedia is not about everything and everyone having their on page. Organizations, such as Dellwood Country Club, have to follow the notability guidelines posted at WP:N and WP:Org. You must cite reliable secondary sources, as outlined here. Please do not see this as personal, as it is not. Cazort raises some pretty good reasons to keep the article below, and that is why I posted it here, so everyone could have their say. Click23 (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(changed to strong) Keep I did a quick google news search: [50] and found a long period of coverage, most of it fairly small, but continually over a period of over 50 years, and much of it in the New York Times. Most of it is about golf tournaments held there and other things related to its golf course. I'd be hesitant to just delete this article: the golf course alone seems notable, but I'd prefer having an article on the whole club if possible, rather than just the golf course. Yes, most of these sources are very old and are not freely available online--but that's not grounds to delete. I am pretty confident that, if one got ones' hands on these print sources, it would be easy to write an article here. In addition, there's also some discussion of zoning controversy involving the club. This article seems like a classic one that it would take time and probably some offline work with library/archive access to improve--but it could be improved and thus should not be deleted. Cazort (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taking a trip into Google News shows several news stories about this golf course, proving notability. The article can easily be expanded and with proper sources could be a good article. Tavix | Talk 22:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just being mentioned in an article doesn't make it proof of notability. What is notable about the club? Many clubs without article host tournaments. So what? And article about a tourney, saying it it being held there, isn't notable. In depth articles about the club itself would be. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:ORG, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". From the several article that I looked at, from Cazorts link, they all talk about someone is a member there, someone got married there, some reception was held there, but nothing about the club itself.

PLEASE KEEP: The Dellwood Country Club has a rich and abundant history. Keep this page because it will be filled out over time with great factual information about the land, the club and the course and so many other things. Here is a link [LINK] to more information about the club. There are SO MANY sources of information. I"m just shocked why Wikipedia is so quick to delete this article. Am i missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.125.58 (talk) ^{Signed by Rankiri (talk)}

Any article can be nominated for deletion, but that doesn't mean it will be deleted. If you really want it kept so bad, I'd recommend getting some sources for it as that would likely sway someone leaning for deletion. Tavix | Talk 17:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source on tillinghast.net gives significant coverage, and as a non-profit, with primarily historical purposes, that does not seem to be associated with the country club, it seems to be independent. Perhaps one could argue it is not independent as it has an interest in promoting golf courses designed by that particular person. But I think this argument would be a bit of a stretch. Surely some print sources must be available in this case? Does anyone who is more knowledgeable know of any? That would solidify the case here. But I still say keep, based on what we have found so far. Cazort (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound weird but who are you guys? I posted the original content about the Dellwood Country Club. Since then, various people have chimed in on whether it should be deleted or not. Are you administrators for Wikipedia or just Wiki Users like me? I'm so confused and curious. Ok, now that i got that out of the way, please tell me how you want me to post sources? I can post the score card and each holes par? I could put endless information, but i get the feeling that someone here doesn't want this page to exist? Who makes the final decision? Also, when you talk about Sources, are you referring to http articles? I'm sorry i'm not down with all the net lingo. I added my LINK to the reference section of the page, but you may have been talking about something else. I'm not sure.

Firstly, any Wikipedia user can comment on discussions about whether an article should be deleted, but a final decision is made by an administrator, and only when some form of consensus is achieved. Secondly, what we mean by sources is covered at WP:N and WP:RS - unless Dellwood Country Club is covered by independent reliable sources (could be websites, newspapers, books, journals, magazines, television, radio etc.), it is probably not notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. If you can post details of some sources that cover Dellwood Country Club, then that would help. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 08:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(and we don't agree, that's the fun of it!) I still think there are enough sources. Although finding more would be nice too. Because this club has been in existence for a long time, I think it's important to consider that there are likely very many print sources that are not showing up in a google search. The Tillinghast Association, that the one link is to, probably would know of sources if you don't know where to look. You might even try calling the club itself! Someone there would certainly know of print sources or books written about it. Cazort (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I contacted the Dellwood Country Club. They told me there is a lot of literature about the Club, but almost all of it isn't available online. Because of this, they were appreciative of my efforts to get the Club listed on Wikipedia, as it's a great way for people to learn about the Club's historic past. As a reference, you should see "Time Magazine, January 14, 1929 Volume XIII Number 2, page 26".

Delete - How could a club founded in 1948 have an article written about it in 1929? Bearian (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you had looked at the article you wouldn't be asking that question. How can you render an opinion if you haven't looked at the article? The closing administrator should ignore your !vote. Drawn Some (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I read the article over, but the reference still does not make sense. The only reference has no title or author, and is not searchable online. The reference dates from 1929, so it must be about the Estate that became the Club in 1948. I do not see how that proves notability. Alexander Hamilton's father-in-law once owned the land I live on, and the future first president of Willamette University once lived in my house. That does not make my house notable. This article needs to have references added, not hand-waving. If you really want to keep it, then please be bold and then fix it. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to point out that you're advocating something unreasonable--saying that people should try to fix it before you'd be convinced to recommend to keep it. I, for one, don't want to put time and effort into editing an article and adding sources only to have it deleted. I have argued that sources are highly likely to exist offline, and even online there is one detailed source and many sources for small, isolated facts. I think this is enough to keep--and keep BEFORE cleaning up. Cazort (talk) 22:21, 6 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 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Regarding this observation, "In addition, there's also some discussion of zoning controversy involving the club." Is there a wiki list on "reasons to watch the local government channel on cable?" Issues of local interest generally don't make notability. If there was an argument that set larger precedent that would be fine. Regarding the other comments, which I have to take as sincere, this is an encyclopedia attempting to archive human knowledge that may transcend immediate situational issues. Some publications try to describe facts starkly. Has your club ever been involved in a scandal? Have children gotten sick from your lawn chemicals and made national news? Sex and big-name celebrities? Freak accident involving a golf ball that made news? There is nothing wrong with "dead tree sources" but we need some way to check it. I've been a defender of the obscure, perhaps if you can find public domain records and put them online that would help but it isn't a primary issue. In legal terms, I think there is something about argue with particularity- you need to at least assert somethig specific enough to argue- an anon post about a vague claim from the owner about some gnostic writings doesn't give us anything to debate. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Merge I grew up near there. Jokes aside, when you filter out incidental events held there, there is some significant coverage from the local newspaper and other news sources. I think there is verifiable and important information but not opposed to a merge to Zukor and/or New City, New York where it's located. StarM 02:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: It seems like this has been around for a while and is worth documenting. Rather than spending time organizing a campaign to delete articles, why not try to find some references to help justify keeping it? As long as the content is interesting enough that a moderate number of people might be interested in reading it and encyclopedic in content it should stay. --Rich0 (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems entirely non-notable. Article makes no claims of notability, and unable to readily find anything that would substantiate such a claim if one were made. _wjemather ^bigissue 10:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ ^{Duplicate vote. (Rankiri (talk))}: The NY Times article was just one of many. I'm contacting the club to get more information on other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.125.58 (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments and don't make multiple recommendations. Thank you. — Rankiri (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability visible here. Somebody change my mind? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I looked through the google news hits and they're all trivial mentions. Has this course won any notable awards? Corpx (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments above about non-online sources. Given that the coverage goes back to the founding of the club (and before, as the discussion here has pointed out--in that the estate that became the club is well-documented), I think it is a lot safer to assume that print sources exist than to assume that they do not. And above, the anonymous user gave this source: [51] which is highly detailed and seems fairly reliable as it is by a non-profit. But the point is, with a historical topic like this, it's absurd to argue to keep or delete solely on the basis of sources that are (readily) available online. We need to look at what sources are online and make a best guess as to what is also out there offline. And personally, I think the online coverage is pretty overwhelming here to--yes it might be mostly trivial mentions, but there is such a huge volume of coverage over a long period of time that it is more than enough to piece together a relatively complete picture of the club just from that alone. Cazort (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you completely on keeping the article based on an assumption that other sources may exist. That completely negates the point of WP:NOTABILITY if we're going to determine notability on unverifiable sources. I dont think the site you linked to qualifies as a reliable source either Corpx (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But article's sources should be expanded. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant search results (WP:V):

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/08/realestate/if-you-re-thinking-of-living-in-new-city-open-space-30-miles-from-the-big-city.html?pagewanted=2

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/27/obituaries/bernard-g-nemeroff-lawyer-82.html — Rankiri (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both incidental coverage and insufficient for it to meet bullet point 1 of WP:GNG. _wjemather ^bigissue 14:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the WP:V notice. This is the best I could find without buying a subscription to The New York Times. — Rankiri (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second article has trivial coverage, but the first article does contribute a small historical fact about the founding of the club, and I think that material belongs in the article. But quibbling over details like this misses the big points covered above, in support of keeping: (a) the detailed tillinghast.net source (b) the extremely high likelihood of print sources being available (c) the sustained coverage over a very long time-period, with. Any one of these points is enough for me to lean towards keeping the article, together they seal it for me. On the basis of further reflection I am changing my recommendation to a strong keep. Cazort (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dellwood Country Club has more facilities than what's listed. They e.g., they have a BBQ pit, volleyball court, kids playground, steam rooms, driving range, etc. But if this article is going to be deleted, then why bother posting. When will an official decision be made on the fate of this article? We have to accept it or delete it. It's been in limbo for weeks. My vote is still to keep it as it provides factual information on a historic club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.7.137 (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One, the BBQ pit and such are great and wonderful and all, but they don't make the country club notable. Two, if you look up, you'll see that it was relisted to get consensus. At this point, I'm in agreement - a decision should be made today. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:05, 6 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rome Review

Unclear notability. No reliable sources in article and a Google search doesn't find any snigbrook (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too new. May achieve notability, but not yet. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author has worked hard on this, and this !vote hurts, but I feel the references are not good enough, being either blogs or not containing material about the subject. The non-notability of the editors and publisher counts against it too. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Sadlier's Catholic almanac and ordo for the year of our Lord 1866. D. & J. Sadlier. 1866. p. 24. OCLC 191323364.

[2] Teefy, John R. (1892). Jubilee Volume 1842-1892: The Archdiocese of Toronto and Archbishop Walsh. G.T. Dixon. p. 313. OCLC 71836934.

[3] The Macmillan Encyclopedia. Macmillan London Limited. 1981. p. 392. ISBN 0333291344.

[4] ttp://awaken-nepal.com/miss-pokhara-2013/

[5] ttps://www.facebook.com/misspokhara

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]