Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 1

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 30 April 2 May >

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 Keep Cheers. I'mperator 13:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Tea Party protests

edit
Timeline of Tea Party protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article reads like an essay written by a 4th grader. "The Ides of March saw the next rally as Cincinatti voiced it's unhappiness with the national government's programs." "The first reported college protest occurred in colonial fashion just 9 days later on April 11th at The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia." We are not looking for "style points" and even if we were, this is terrible. The essay is written horribly, the timeline is constructed horribly, consisting mainly of prose. Choosing which dates to include without relying on WP:RS which presents the entire history is verging on WP:NOR and WP:SYN since there are hundreds of events that could be included in the "timeline", which is actually a prose. This article is basically junk and needs to be merged into the main Teabag Party article, where the information can be contained nicely. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrictramp, does that inclusion change the method of the process or anything like that? (Asking since I know little about the deletion schemes). The Squicks (talk) 00:16, 7 May 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasiri Silvea

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

autobiography, see Wikipedia:Autobiography Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:35, 1 May 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.

--Ixfd64 (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poleconomy

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

Only sources are Board Game Geek (editable by users, not a reliable source), the company site and a site trying to sell copies of the game. Need multiple independent and reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage in a way demonstrating actual notability to have a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mere mentions do not notability make. And if you'd stop whining about WP:BEFORE all th time and actually acquaint yourself with our notability policies you might make an informed comment on an AFD once in a while. DreamGuy (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep this is one of those pre-internet entities for which sourcing might be a tad tricky to find. We need to avoid systemic bias by addressing this type of thing. I recall seeing this game alot. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 8 May 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 Cheers. I'mperator 13:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Farming Game

edit
The Farming Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a board game. Only source is the web site of the owners of this and similarly themed games trying to sell copies. DreamGuy (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boardgamegeek.com does not establish notability, as it tries to list every trivial thing it can, and it's NOT a reliable source as it's edited by the public at large. "Staying in print for 30 years" is not any sort of indication of notability by any measure Wikipedia uses. Random Google hits aren't either. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to vote keep you might actually try some real justification by our actual rules... for a change. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His point that WP:BEFORE is actually part of our deletion policy is on point though. Did you do a search? Hobit (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep [4], [5] have free and significant coverage. [6] is a non-free article solely on the topic (I can't see it), [7] is one of a large number of non-free articles that cover the topic. All that on the first page of the Gnews search. I've actually played this one with non-gaming friends. It's fairly well known if a moderate game (at best). Hobit (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Pérez Ariño

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

Unsourced BLP of a non-notable footballer. PROD was removed without comment. Player does not seem to have played a professional game, despite the unsourced appearances written in the infobox. Unless sources to confirm his identity and notability can be provided the article should go. King of the North East 23:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian maldini

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

May be the recreation of a deleted page discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Maldini. Tried to move to a capitalized page, but discovered a creation protection. Added a source to the article, but also found some 13,200 hits via search for "Christian Maldini" on Yahoo!, so thought a new discussion was worthwhile. Even if the result is delete, we know to keep an eye on the uncapitalized title. Greedyhalibut (talk) 23:18, 1 May 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 Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election. No consensus to delete, good arguments for both "keep" and "redirect" but the "redirect" arguments are slightly stronger IMO. No prejudice against restoring a standalone article if the "content and referencing improvements" mentioned are made or there's otherwise a consensus for it. Consider this a "keep" close combined with an editorial decision to redirect. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Collenette

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

This person is a failed federal candidate and a minor civil servant in PM's office. Only claim to fame is she's the wife of a former cabinet minister. Doesn't meet criteria for notability. Suttungr (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Marsh

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

Non-notable individual. Unable to find evidence, "the person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them", or, "the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Not sure the claim he was, "only individual in the history of The American College to be awarded a Master of Science in Financial Services degree, a Chartered Life Underwriter and a Chartered Financial Consultant designations in a single annual graduation ceremony" is substantial enough to support notability. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prior proposed allegation has been removed from the article. While the claim is true, there is no substantial evidence to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cougarblue13 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 1 May 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 I concur with CW's argument; use the reference he provided, and, at worst, merge into an article. Cheers. I'mperator 13:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nanvaent

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

No evidence that this MUD meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability. The only sources provided in the last two years are not, unfortunately, reliable. It appears that there simply isn't reliable, third-party information available to show this game is notable. Simply being the "second or third MUD in the UK", as claimed on the talk page, doesn't make this de facto notable. Sandolsky (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion a while back and it was decided to keep it AFAIK fluoronaut (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. A large number of articles about MUDs were nominated in one very large discussion. Many of those arguing keep in that debate made the point that some of the individual articles should be separately relisted since they were about non-notable games. The keep result came about because clearly some of those articles were notable and mass nominating all of them was a bad idea. I don't believe that means that all of the articles there were automatically notable Sandolsky (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like wikipedia itself uses the word 'notable' in reference to this game in the Discworld mudlib entry--Mzzl (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is referenced in this scholarly paper and the title is a useful search term. Worst case is that it gets merged into some large article about MUDs. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect, that paper simply contains a one-line entry about Nanvaent in a large table listing MUDs. The existence of the game isn't in dispute, it notability is. If there is a paper (preferably multiple papers) that is substantially about Nanvaent, then it should be used as the basis for a properly sourced article. The paper you found doesn't rise to the level of a source for Wikipedia's purposes. Sandolsky (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 17:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When disputing a game's notability, you do dispute a game's existence. If no one has written about it (nothing notable), then there is no reason for it to exist in the minds of society.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elm-39 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 May 2009
  • Comment The policy on notability is flawed. This isn't a paper encyclopedia where everything has to fit into a fixed and limited number of pages. It is also biased against things not happening in the USA. There are thousands of wikipedia entries on individual high schools, fraternities, clubs and picknick sites, all apparently considered more notable than the entries for a number of MUDS which are still open to the public and still have players. And even if this hadn't been the case, why would an online game that has been up and running for 18 years be less notable than events that hit the local news for a few days some 30 years ago? --Mzzl (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: By the way, I am *not* arguing for the deletion of those high schools, fraternities, clubs and other obscure entries. If something is notable to a few thousand people, even only extremely locally, why not keep it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzzl (talk • contribs) 07:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – found something that provides some decent coverage of the MUD here. I am still undecided whether I am for or against deletion, however. MuZemike 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I'm satisfied from the searches by MuZemike and Colonel Warden that there's enough independent sources to [[WP:|verify]] something significant on this topic. Maybe consider a merge, though. Randomran (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: This is one of the oldest still running LPMuds, a forerunner of Ultima Online and World of Warcraft. I know this probably isn't as significant to your usual Wikipedia user who is looking for information on porn stars or variations on anal sex, but it has some historical significance to online games. Jlambert (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The game is mentioned in an issue of Audyssey, a magazine on gaming for the blind: [8]--Mzzl (talk) 12:58, 7 May 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 00:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-training

edit
Co-training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability established, no independent sources, looks like just promotion for some term some people talked about at a conference. Certainly there would be other uses of the term that did not refer to these two people's theory. Just a junk article. DreamGuy (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

You continue to have a really bizarre idea of what meets Wikipedia's rules on notability. The existence of some random refs to people using the term does not demonstrate that it's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It's just a neologism without widespread usage anywhere. We aren't academicjargonopedia here. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neologism hardly applies to a scientific term that is 11 years old. Cited by 1312 in Google Scholar - that seems pretty widespread. It is discussed in tens of books:[9], e.g. "A paradigm, termed co-training, for learning with labeled and unlabeled data was proposed in Blum and Mitchell (1998)."[10]. It seems to be a seminal work in the data mining of web pages, so it is certainly notable. There are reliable sources outside the mainstream press. Fences and windows (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-jargon source. Search Engines Ready to Learn: "New "co-training" models that tap additional sources of information about a Web page are the third technique-"the thing I'm most excited about," says Mitchell. These proprietary algorithms can capture "unlabeled" data sets with very limited training by programmers. They do this by analyzing the hyperlinks that refer to a Web page and correlating the information contained in those links to the text on the page. "The features that describe a page are the words on the page and the links that point to that page," says Mitchell. "The co-training models utilize both classifiers to determine the likelihood that a page will contain data relevant to the search criteria." In a progressive search, the algorithm remembers link information as an implied correlation, and as the possible link correlations grow, they can help to confirm a hit or a miss. The search works both ways so that text information on the page can help determine the relevance of link classifiers-hence the term "co-training". Co-training models reduce hit error percentages by more than half, Mitchell claims. Other algorithms have a hit-accuracy of 86 percent, while co-trained models attain 96 percent accuracy, he says. WhizBang's online job site, FlipDog.com, launched last year as a demonstration of its data-mining technology. Since then it has signed up clients such as Dun & Bradstreet and the U.S. Department of Labor, for which it is compiling a directory of continuing and distance education opportunities." Fences and windows (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rescue!. I've made an attempt at rescuing the article. I found some sources and tried to edit it to make it more accessible and obviously notable. I hope that the page is now in a state where it is clearer what the use of co-training is. It is not just an obscure bit of academia, but rather a technique that is influential and practically applicable. The original author of the page was obviously a computer scientist and didn't really give any "in" for the non-specialist (though I saw a blog post referring to this page saying it was a good definition).[11] I am worried that other pages like this are getting deleted instead of being rescued. Fences and windows (talk) 03:02, 3 May 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) 00:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Heaney

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

Completing unfinished nomination for another user, Twinkle apparently hiccuped. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 22:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was trying to ix it by hand by TenPoundHammer beat me to it. Deletion reason (second try, the one I typed into TWINKLE was longer and more detailed) wad: "No sources at all given, let alone the multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources establishing notability that are required. Tagged since Aug. 2008 with no improvement. Nothing in the bio given here suggests enough notability for a Wikipedia article." DreamGuy (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what there do you think demonstrate notability per Wikipedia standards for an article? DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page has existed for more than 4 years and been edited by 17 different Wikipedians, not counting (I'm assuming from the name) Francis Heaney himself. Suddenly he's not notable? Personally, I'd like to see all published puzzle constructors with a significant number of credits in Wikipedia. Francis certainly meets this criteria. While we don't see his name in the newspaper much, Amazon lists ~50 puzzle books that he is an author or co-author of. I think the best statement is the one made by User:DreamGuy in August 2007, when he removed a notability tag.
"being a former editor at GAMES mag is quite notable all by itself"
Note: As a fellow member of the NPL, I know Francis personally, but I have not edited this page. Co-nominator DreamGuy (who has now reversed himself) claims to be a member of the NPL, so he probably knows Francis personally as well.
RoyLeban (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of suddenly not being notable, the article never demonstrated any notability and I gave it almost a year to demonstrate notability. The "former editor" line was when I mistakenly thought it was editor editor, like main editor. "Editor at large" is one of several nonnotable inferior positions. DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 2 May 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. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solid-state ionics

edit
Solid-state ionics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

the article subject is virtually the same as fast ion conductor which is a more substantial article. Solid-state ionics appears to only exist for the purpose of plugging The Asian Society for Solid State Ionics. I would have no problem with a properly referenced article on this society, but doing it by a back-door fork is not good. SpinningSpark 22:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


*Keep and consider a merge,(see below) The term is in fact used generally. Cf. Solid State Ionics, published by Elsevier, and having nothing whatever to do with the Asian Society for SSI. [13], andthe 300 or so books in WorldCat with that phrase [14] I am not sure whether there is an actual distinction between this term and "fast ion conductors". If they are true synonyms, since WorldCat shows 131 books with the title Fast ion conductors [15] , I am not sure which of the two is the more standard term. DGG (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • To clarify, I am not disputing that solid-state ionics is a recognised and widely used term. Solid-state ionics is the study of solid-state ionic conductors for which another term is fast ion conductor for which we already have an article. Besides the mention of the Asian Society for Solid State Ionics there is nothing in this article that is not already covered in much more detail in the existing article. I would not be in favour of merging in the material on the Asian Society without 3rd party references, ie not just the self-references there at present. So I guess I am proposing a redirect, but I did not want to do it unilaterally, hence the AfD. SpinningSpark 21:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have I think figured out the nature of the entry: The society holds a variety of local conferences, and publishes their proceedings in a series of books with a title or subtitle: Solid State Ionics, for example ,[16] . I have checked a number of these books, and essentially none of them are held by more than a few US/UK libraries. The present articles is very similar to their usual blurb for such a book, though I have not found the specific one. the society is unimportant; the conferences are unimportant. The correct course is to redirect the term as a synonym, if it is an exact synonym. the material on the society should not be merged. DGG (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and/or redirect If the nominator isn't contesting the subject exists, then either merging the two or redirecting one is a better solution based on the commonality of the phrase. - Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep--even the nominator no longer supports this Neither merge nor redirect. It's a field, not a material, and should be the one with the bigger article. It's like saying merge chemistry to oxygen. Just because the article isn't up to snuff on a perfectly valid topic (huge topic), and you don't know much about it, don't bring it here for AfD. No. --KP Botany (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under WP:SOAPBOX. This article simply exists to promote an external entity whose notability is far from proven (to put it politely). To take the simple semantic line, any article named Solid-state ionics should have a link from Ionic solid, no? And wow! Ionic Solid redirects to Ionic compound. On the other hand, the authors seems to claim that these are really special ionic compounds, because they are also solid electrolytes (as if the others weren't): now where does Solid electrolyte redirect to? Fast ion conductor. There is absolutely nothing in this article worth saving except a pathetic example of self-promotion. It should be speedily deleted forthwith. Physchim62 (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#AfD alert Solid-state ionics. Brian Jason Drake 07:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why are you wasting your time trying to delete a stub article? The article is not trying to promote whatever asian society I put there. In any case, that asian society is no longer on the page and isn't an issue (nor would it be an issue requiring deletion). As per KP Botany, a "fast ion conductor" is obviously in no way shape or form a synonm of "solid-state ionics". Think for a second, one is a field and one is a type of material. This nomination makes no sense. Fresheneesz (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be no rush here. If it doesn't have enough info yet - its not causing anyone any problems. But when someone comes along and sees a stub article, eventualy someone will add their tidbit of info. It takes a lot of energy to research obscure subjects like this, and deleting my work will just make it harder for the next person who wants to add some material about solid-state ionics. Fresheneesz (talk) 19:42, 5 May 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 Speeedy delete again. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 22:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor of Metaphysical Research

edit
Doctor of Metaphysical Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Non-notable "degree". No reliable sources. Self-promotional. I believe it has been speedied at least once. Wperdue (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the log shows a speedy deletion as a G11. The recreated article is substantially the same text. SpinningSpark 22:25, 1 May 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.
  • (ec) I have speedied this as a G12 copyright infringement from http (colon) //zcat8.sytes.net/meta/?page_id=2 (can't give a link because it is on the blacklist) which claims (c) MetaNetwork. SpinningSpark 22:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ibitsu

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

non-notable musician per WP:MUSIC, no reliable references per WP:RS MuffledThud (talk) 21:31, 1 May 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 00:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midway Drive In

edit
Midway Drive In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD: Non-notable local drive-in with no reliable, third-party sources as to notability/inclusion on Wikipedia. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 21:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry that I cannot consider the articles in Rockford Register Star, Sauk Valley News, Chicago Tribune, Herald News, or Radish Magazine to be trivial. Granted I am less impressed with Cinema Treasures, Z-Events, and Box Office Mojo, but Encounter Lee County does source it as one of the 2 oldest in the state... and Flashback Weekend shows its resurgence in its hosting Slasherfest. And yes, Drivein Movie is simply a listing, but shows its continued existance in the light of the disappearance of such icons. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eanna Cullen

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

Self-published author whose bio was written by his agent. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:ACADEMIC. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't say his having an agent made much sense to me either, but given that http://www.misbeliever.com/Aboutme.html says: "Agent information: please contact Robin at Baxter and Hunt Publishing," and the creating editor's name is User:Robinbaxterhunt, that was the conclusion I came to.
Looking around http://www.baxterhuntpublishing.co.uk/ a little more, though (a moderately convincing fake site until you look at it closely), it appears that User:Robinbaxterhunt may be "Robin Baxter, Chief Editor of Baxter-Hunt Publishing". That would make the original editor Cullen's publisher instead of his agent, although similarly, why a self-published author would have a publisher, I have no idea. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cant find any significant reviews for this authors apparently self published books. the article of course is transparently written by the agent, but thats not enough for deletion. COI alone just makes for a lousy article. if anyone can find some legitimate info, id surely reconsider, as i dont want to delete based on my inability to find a valid third party or secondary source. This article has more editing going on than any publicity i can find in the real world. Having been in the book business, this only makes the author less marketable, its just tacky. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is typical of main stream Msn Junkers. We at Baxter Hunt Publishing UK are a small Independent Publisher, incorporated in the UK, using both print runs and POD to help writers get a start in a market that is openly hostile to unknown newcomers. The sources given were genuine: the two most recent of these being 1) an article in the Irish World which can be found here [19] & 2) An article, only last week in Bray People which can be found here [20]
Please delete this content immediately, but be reminded that though my client has self-published two works, Misbeliever and The Wall the Fog and the ocean, I have undertaken to publish Dark Pupils. Well done on allowing many questionable articles to mark this "What I Know Is" encyclopaedia whilst hindering open information about an upcoming author, which I sincerely hope you have cause to regret. I would suggest the phrase "What I Think I Know" Robin Baxter.
Please also feel free to delete any articles pending or otherwise written by anyone at Baxter Hunt Publishing UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinbaxterhunt (talk • contribs) 22:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Robinbaxterhunt (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: (in response to the above):
  • I don't know what's meant by "What I Know Is" or "What I Think I Know Is". I don't know what "main stream Msn Junkers" are, either.
  • Does this mean the article now qualifies for {{db-author}}?
  • I'd be more inclined to believe that Baxter Hunt Publishing UK was a "real" publisher if its website was a little less fake. Or if the domain wasn't registered to Eanna Cullen. Or if it had published anything that wasn't by Eanna Cullen.
  • Have you read WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:ACADEMIC? That's actually the question here. If you have sources that shows how Cullen meets any of those, please add them! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Enzo Ferrari owners

edit
List of notable Enzo Ferrari owners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

My reason is: Pointless piece of trivia which is no relevance to an encyclopedia site

Not to mention that also none of these are sourced, as the fact is how do you know these people really own them or have they borrowed the car. Thirdly, wasn't there a list that got deleted sometimes ago and lastly, how many of these people (those without its own article) is eligible for its own article. Donnie Park (talk) 21:00, 1 May 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 G12 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electro Magnetic Launcher

edit
Electro Magnetic Launcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article covers already covered subjects; orphaned article; inappropriate tone for Wikipedia atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 20:43, 1 May 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 per WP:HEY. I'm still not fully convinced, but it's close enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Wilson

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

Tagged as unreferenced since May 2007 with no improvements. I couldn't find any sources that specifically covered him, just trivial mentions like "(name of artist) worked with producer Wally Wilson". He does have a few co-writer's and co-producer's credits to his name, but according to Allmusic none of his production credits was a solo effort, and only three of his cowrites ("That's What I Like About You" by Trisha Yearwood, "Come Cryin' to Me" by Lonestar and "House of Love" by Amy Grant) were singles. I think this is proof that just being a Grammy nominee isn't always enough if there're no sources. If this is deleted, I think that Category:Albums produced by Wally Wilson should be as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the production credits are for Greatest Hits/Super Hits albums that simply contained tracks that he produced (as he produced the studio album, but didn't actually produce the Greatest Hits). The Billboard hits only list albums that he produced as well, and I don't see a mention of him on the Skyline page. None of the sources gives more than a listing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:20, 3 May 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 hoax (G3).. - Vianello (Talk) 07:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Office for Entrepreneurs' Relief

edit
Office for Entrepreneurs' Relief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a hoax. "Entrepreneurs' Relief" is a real concession in the UK tax system, but this office does not exist.

An elaborate website has been set up for it. Some kind of scam? It is plausible-looking, though the stock pictures of happy smiling people are reminiscent of other fake websites I have seen, rather than the more severe text-only approach usual with UK Government sites.

Large chunks of the website have been copied from the sites of other government departments like BERR, HMRC and the CPS. For example:

  • CPS website: "The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is a national organisation with offices across the whole of England and Wales. The CPS is structured into 42 areas that are sub-divided into 14 regional area groups with a Complex Casework Unit situated within each group."
  • OER website "The Office for Entrepreneurs' Relief (OER) is a national organisation with offices across the whole of England and Wales. The OER is structured into 42 areas that are sub-divided into 14 regional area groups with a Complex Casework Unit situated within each group."

If that is not enough, consider:

  • The OER gets 108 Ghits, compare over 2 million for Business Link, a real agency in the same line of business, and 362,000 for the CPS.
  • Most of those Ghits are WP or mirrors or its own website.
  • Direct.gov.uk, the UK government web portal, has not heard of it.
  • BERR, its supposed parent department, has not heard of it.
  • Two of the references in the article are its own web-site; the other three do not mention it.
  • UK Government agency websites end ".gov.uk" not ".org.uk".

The author StewartDuncan (talk · contribs) edited only during February, mainly this article and links to it. Congratulations to BasilSorbie and Shake45 who spotted the hoax. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes are specifically excluded from G1 but not from G3; they are frequently deleted under the latter criterion as "blatant and obvious misinformation." Deor (talk) 02:02, 2 May 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 00:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Christian Academy

edit
Jefferson Christian Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication that this school is secondary or otherwise notable; no sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another story with substantial coverage about the school [30], says "The nondenominational school, affiliated with the American Association of Christian Schools and its Virginia affiliate, Old Dominion Association of Church Schools, has students ranging in age from 6 weeks to 18 years and is divided into three sections." ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This site also shows high school students at the school [31]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ChildofMidnight. This primary and secondary school passes WP:NHS and WP:GNG with a number of reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability, either in the article or in the above discussion. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would change my vote to "merge" if there was something to merge to-- no articles about education in Giles County, Virginia, no article about Ripplemead. Although I appreciate that Midnight has done some searching (much more so than the article's creator ever did!) I don't see that it's notable outside the immediate area. Though it does have six students of high school age (two apiece listed at 9th, 10th and 11th grades), I see no evidence that JCA has ever produced a high school graduate, nor conferred a high school diploma. People will differ about the importance of producing a graduate, but one of the factors in giving inherent notability to a high school is that a high school provides the first officially recognized degree of educational attainment -- the high school diploma -- within a community. I'm not saying that the school can't show notability; it just can't qualify for inherent notability at this time. Mandsford (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This school is a high school. See this article from The Roanoke Times: "The nondenominational school, affiliated with the American Association of Christian Schools and its Virginia affiliate, Old Dominion Association of Church Schools, has students ranging in age from 6 weeks to 18 years and is divided into three sections." Even if it didn't include a high school, Jefferson Christian Academy passes WP:ORG per the sources that ChildofMidnight, TerriersFan, and I have listed above. Cunard (talk) 02:10, 7 May 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 to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Laroche

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

French poet, published a dozen books but it's not clear what their notability is. Article created by a J Laroche... Notability not established, and a few searches (including google news on "Jean Laroche" and poésie) does not produce much of anything. I'd be happy to see improvement instead of deletion, but even the French article doesn't help. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is well-sourced for its size. Edward321 (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No, nominator appears to be correct: the references do not establish at all what we might find in them. I had a quick glance at the MLA, and Jean Laroche is not an "author as subject" there, which is a bad sign. The references look as if they might mention him in passing as a poet. Granted, I'm guessing, but still. Also, those presses don't ring a notable bell with me, and the "Poets du Pays Nantais" thingies (what are they?) suggest we're dealing with a regional poet here. The French WP article is even less informative, and it gives me no reason to extend the benefit of the doubt. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since when has it been our practice to dismiss sources without checking them first? To do so would be to exacerbate the already great systemic bias against subjects from before the Internet age. Snippets from two of the book sources offered can be displayed by Google Books - [35][36] - and they seem to show substantial, if not extensive, coverage of the subject. And what does the comment, "those presses don't ring a notable bell with me", mean? The presses that count are those that publish the sources, and they comprise three university presses and another major century-old publisher. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment--I would appreciate a bit more good faith here. For starters, I checked the MLA, which is more of an effort than typing a name in Google Books, and it had nothing. The two references you found may suggest substantial treatment, but to me they don't. The first, a 506-page book, has five mentions of him, and as far as the snippet allows there is no significant mention of our poet. For starters, the book is not about him but about a school of poetry to which Laroche seems to have belonged, but note that his date of birth and his education are mentioned in a footnote--if he had any kind of significance in that school, surely he would have a section or a chapter devoted to him. I can't tell from your comment if you can read French or not; if you do, you will see, however, that he received an award named for the founder of that school. So it's a really mixed bag: not notable enough to get his own section in a huge book, but the winner of an award, which also does not warrant more than a footnote. The second book, no less than 795 pages long, mentions him once, once, and given that that mention is so slight it doesn't matter who publishes the book.

      As for your sneer at my other comment, it is a bit facetious to suppose that it doesn't matter for a poet whether they get published by a huge and important press, or by a small literary press, or by a vanity press--just ask the poet or the bookstore or the reading public or the institute where they are trying to get tenure. In fact, your critique of my comment really isn't worth any more words.

      If I had found anything more on the French WP, it would have been a different matter. Now, I also checked the Gale Literary Database of Contemporary Authors and their Dictionary of Literary Biography, and both have nothing. In the interest of full disclosure: Don Johnson, in The Appalachian Homeplace as Oneiric House (Knoxville: U of Tennessee P, 1991), does mention Laroche: he cites Gaston Bachelard who cites four lines from a Laroche poem in The Poetics of Space (I hope this isn't a redlink!). If you want to call that significant coverage, then we have really diverging definitions of significant coverage. Again, I find no reason to suppose, in the absence of clear evidence from my searches or from the English and French WP articles, that we are dealing with a notable author. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Hey, let's hold back on the comments about anyone's motivations. We are nearly always in agreement about AfDs (to the extent that I often find that I don't have to comment because you have already said what I would have said), so there's no need to get shirty. I didn't accuse you of any bad faith, but I did notice that you said yourself that you were guessing. And I wasn't "sneering" about your comment about the publishers, merely stating that the important thing for establishing notability is the quality of the sources, and, anyway, Éditions Seghers seems to be a pretty reputable publisher. As regards the two sources with ISBNs, one, as you say, mentions the subject on five pages, and the second has at least a paragraph on the subject. This, together with the other sources in the article, indicates that there is substantial coverage, i.e. coverage that has some substance rather just a name check. The criterion for notability is "substantial", not "extensive". There is no need for people to have had a whole book, or book chapter, published about them for them to be notable. The existence of reference works that don't mention the subject, or the number of other pages in those that do, is irrelevant. It's the specific pages in the sources that do discuss the subject that count. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have one!
  • Hey Phil, I just now realize I should have made it more clear that I meant the poet's publishers, not those of the secondary sources--I hope I made that clear in my response. If a poet is published by a very notable publisher, then that (in the absence of other evidence) is a pretty good indication. And in this case we are guessing, both of use. And my guess, given that the guy is given so little space in such big books, is that he is not that notable, that the coverage there (see the footnote, for instance), is not substantial, let alone extensive. So let's keep it at a disagreement between us in degree, not in kind. Sorry if I came across harsh--I thought from your first response that you thought I hadn't checked anything at all. As a token of my good faith, I'm offering you one of the buffalo wings I'm munching on--and that's a big offer, since I only have three left. Here! Drmies (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. There is another Jean Laroche, not to be confused with the subject of this article, who does research on audio communication and who seems to pass WP:PROF.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The book sources are sufficient. One does not expect much coverage of late 20th century French poetry in American academic sources. The negative results from Gale and MLA are not relevant. DGG (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The books listings don't seem to have ISBN or any other sourcing information. Maybe article could be expanded, but it seems like a delete for now. Johndowning (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The most notable works by the subject were published in the 1950s, well before ISBNs were introduced, and the article does contain the generally accepted sourcing information for books, i.e. author, title, publisher and year of publication. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 7 May 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 rationale for deletion given (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brana Bajic

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

Tagged by anon, who didn't list the article at AFD decltype (talk) 19:11, 1 May 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 g1 nonsense. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dildo Baggins

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

Hoax   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:38, 1 May 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. Flowerparty☀ 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Stun Gunz

edit
The Stun Gunz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Looking into notability, every item in the list (mostly pay sites) is pre-2000, and the article says they began in 2004, which means the articles are not about them. There is a claim to having played in the Warped Tour, but a G News search brings up nothing, however this from Last.fm says they were on in 2007, but that isn't significant coverage in a reliable source, which would be used to pass WP:MUSIC, section 4 (and it wasn't "their" tour). kelapstick (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is: "They have recently had brief appearances, on the Vans Warped Tour." A brief appearance is something totally different from headlining. - Mgm|(talk) 10:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

System of a Down demos

edit
System of a Down demos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is entirely unsourced, or sourced only from fansites. As a general rule, demos are not notable, and none of these have received enough coverage to be considered notable. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:56, 1 May 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 to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Harrington

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

Fictional character who appeared in only 12 out of 514 episodes of the television series Peyton Place. LargoLarry (talk) 17:23, 1 May 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 by Law, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fake IPL blogger

edit
The fake IPL blogger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable, original research and copyvio from [39] SGGH ping! 17:20, 1 May 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 WP:CSD#G8 (copyright violation, of http://www.utahsredbarn.com/bk/historydriedcherries.html). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History dried tart cherries

edit
History dried tart cherries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm doubtful about this. Could the history of dried cherries in Utah be notable? AvN 17:18, 1 May 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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VideoGame Movie

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

Cannot find reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:NFF. AvN 17:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh damn. I didn't see the CSD tag. Sorry about that. AvN 17:23, 1 May 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 00:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Surprise (Daughtry)

edit
No Surprise (Daughtry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a future single supported by no reliable sources, therefore failing WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER and WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 16:39, 1 May 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 00:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LyricWiki

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

Delete. Somehow this article has managed to survive two previous nominations, despite lacking non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. I see no reason why we should be giving favoritism to this website just because it is a wiki. JBsupreme (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Consensus has been established twice in the past. Notable players like Amarok use it to obtain lyrics, and SColombo's rationale in the previous AfD still applies. AvN 16:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball speedy keep - Plenty of reliable third party sources were provided the last AfD, and just because no one has added them to the article since then doesn't mean we should delete it all of a sudden. Notability has been proven and there is no deadline. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources mentioned in the last AFD are rather weak... they either are non-working links or very trivial coverage ("LyricWiki (http://www.lyricwiki.org) is a free source to search for or add lyrics and it has a web services API available." and that's it). Others are blogs or appear to be written by people associated with LyricWiki. The only thing approaching something that could be a meaningful source is a supposed feature in "the German tech magazine, C't (issue #13/2006)" but no link was provided for that. It looks like someone claimed a bunch of sources exist... and people bought it... but the sources really don't seem to be there, and I suspect that's why they weren't added to the article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bunch of links really doesn't mean there's enough information to write a proper article from. Which of those are reliable sources, written by third parties, containing paragraphs of useful description of the site and its history? --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N doesn't require "paragraphs of useful description of the site and its history". It just needs to have "significant coverage", which is "more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". The very first link [40] to Webuser is exclusively about this topic, addresses the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. --Explodicle (T/C) 21:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if these are all reliable sources, none go beyond trivial coverage. They are just saying it has over 200,000 pages of lyrics, it's a wiki, and there aren't ads. This is trivial coverage... for example there's nothing sourcable about the history of the site, who runs it, how it's paid for, and most importantly its legal status. All we can source is about a 150-word promotional description... that's just not an encyclopedia article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; there are third-party sources but none is particularly detailed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability does not mean 'links with pages of content' nor is deletion appropriate where the subject is notable but the article has failed to include the content. One of the things that makes Lyricwiki notable is it's APIs, which mean that it is getting built into apps and mashups, such as here[41]. The number of apps/addons/mashups now appearing linking Web 2.0 music providers such as Last.fm with Lyricwiki are (I would argue) giving it notability by stealth.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I thought you said pretty much exactly that...twice. I believe we are defining 'non-trivial' differently.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial coverage to me is when all the sources just repeat the same 3-5 general facts about the site. It's not very deep coverage and leaves so many things unanswerable... I've always thought Wikipedia articles should strive to be more than just repetitions of a website's official blurb. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought we were taking a different approach. The fact that a Wikipedia article is not complete and could be improved is not grounds for it's deletion, so I would take the facts that are available - it's definitely a very big wiki, it has a lot of users, it is connected to a number of notable apps etc - as straightforward evidence of the subject's notability, and confine my comments to the improvement of the article. I think you have WP:SNOW chance of having the article deleted, but I would agree with you that it needs more content.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 deletes to 3 keeps... of course it's not a vote. But at any rate, I agree that it's a work in progress... however, that's based on the idea that the sources are there. The burden is on people who want to keep the article to find the sources, even if they don't add them to the article that minute. The whole "we'll find good sources some day, it's a work in progress" thing could justify an article an article on my cat, and believe me he isn't notable. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very widely used web source. If they do end up banned legally, they will be all the more notable. DGG (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This reason doesn't seem to have anything to do with inclusion policy. If I was elected Pope I'd be all the more notable but uh... I'll hold off the article about me. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I've updated the article with a few more sources. It's now a little bit better sourced than when it passed two AfDs and a deletion review. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The replies in previous nominations have already established that the site is notable. Maybe not as notable as MySpace or Google, but still notable enough to get noticed and reviewed by Web100 (where LyricWiki is ranked #1) and others. KieferFL (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that the article is still here says it all. The Dummies series of books are also widely recognised. To get a mention in this book is notable. Redxx 01:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears that the claim is that the sources are weak? The sources here are a published book, two industry magazines, three academic papers, numerous highly respected online sources such as LifeHacker, ReadWriteWeb, Mashable, ProgrammableWeb, Web100, MacWorld's blog, MacUser and Wired News. These nominations are getting old, but I think the reason they're happening has less to do with weather the subject of the article is good, but rather because the article itself isn't that robust. Perhaps the best way to avoid future AfDs would be to beef up the article, but I digress. -SColombo (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still just ~100 words of surface description, no matter how well formatted. No history, no operation info, no legal info. This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a blurb. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the above, the reasons given in previous AfD's for keeping the article are still as valid whilst appearing more substantial & numerous than the 'reasons for not keeping'. - Notime2cry
  • Keep There seem to be enough sources of adequate reliability (obviously more and better RS would be nice, but what is there is adequate). The size and amount of use it receives makes it notable even if it is poorly discussed in the mainstream media. Just because something isn't discussed, doesn't mean it's not notable. Maybe the media just doesn't understand it very well, it's not controversial enough to sound like interesting news, or maybe journalists aren't interested in lyrics? ;-) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 22:54, 7 May 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 00:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Devins

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

Nomination for AFD as recommended at BLP Noticeboard [42] GainLine ♠♥ 15:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was information from the article on Maura Harrington & was originally introduced by you into her article [44]. This was originally part of my attempts to expand the article which failed as I couldn't find anything of note anywhere. Why would you have info on someone in one persons article but not in their own? You obviously deemed it worthy of keeping as you added to the point [45]. GainLine ♠♥ 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you shouldn't have added it: I'm saying it's hypocritical of you to complain about an article being skewed largely because of material you added yourself.. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article isn't really a bio and should probably be a section in another article in a reduced form. Smartse (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable judge who has a notable case that is already discussed in its own article, Shell to Sea. In the entire article, the only part that does not have to do with the case is the first two sentences, "Mary Devins is a District Court judge in County Mayo, Ireland. She is the wife of Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Dr. Jimmy Devins from Sligo." TJRC (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Devins' decisions get written about in national newspapers and magazines; that would take a pretty loose definition of "her own local area". You're the first to mention BLP problems; could you expand on that? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:40, 8 May 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 00:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VEB Film Leipzig

edit
VEB Film Leipzig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible advertising for nn film company. While the article has recently had some independent sources added, these are either minor mentions or seem to support notability for one of the company's films, but not the company itself. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Avb0001 (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Concerns of "Possible advert" should be addressed through WP:CLEANUP, as AfD is NOT for cleanup. User: Avb0001 makes some very valid points. Logic and WP:AGF allow that German reliable sources showing notability should be translated and considered... unless a German Wikipedian, qualified to do a proper (and lacking) search per WP:BEFORE tells me they do not exist. For any to assert "I haven't heard of 'em, so they can't be notable" Or "I cannot find English sources, so it can't be notable" OR "I cannot read the non-English sources, so they must not reliable" would be just the tiniest bit of hubris. Per the applicable essay WP:CSB, the article should be cleaned up, kept, and then expanded. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
  • Weak keep as the producer of what sems to be one notable film, Route 66, (based on the reviews in Spiegel Online & Telepolis) and another just possibly notable film, the about to be released or just released "The Last Drug". Whether the two films show the company notable is unclear; I have not found any good published source about them in particular--the ghits are mainly postings of the open source films, or blog comments about them. DGG (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution radio broadcast

edit
Revolution radio broadcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable radio program. Program is local in nature and lacking nationwide media exposure. Individuals associated with program are local to area. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Spinningspark, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lbictoabl

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

Neologism and/or made-up word

The article, which cites no sources, claims that Lbictoabl is in wide use. A Google search, however, turns up exactly two results, both of them in Wikipedia and both put there by the same editor. This article also has an older prod template from April 30, but there is no discussion of it on April 30 so I am re-nominating it today. betsythedevine (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, WP:NEO isn't speedy deletion criteria. See Wikipedia:CSD#Non-criteria. ~EdGl ★ 13:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. I wasn't implying it should have been speedy deleted with that rationale. I believe that it should now be deleted quickly because of that reason. And WP:RS, WP:N etc. But you can't really say "notability" for a phrase, which is where NEO roles in. Anyway, thanks for pointing it out nonetheless. Greg Tyler (t • c) 14:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) True, but speedy G7 is valid in this case as the author requested deletion on the article talk page. I have just made it so. SpinningSpark 15:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(to Greg Tyler) Please see Wikipedia:Per for correct usage of the word "per" :P ~EdGl ★ 15:05, 2 May 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OpenBVE

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

Article was deleted less than a week ago and has now been recreated. The software is still not notable and has no reliable sources.ZoeL (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per ZoeL's nomination. This article has not established notability, nor it has any reliable sources to cover the facts. I might also consider WP:SALT as well, since this article was deleted less than a week ago and no recreation is necessary. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:45, 1 May 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. Flowerparty☀ 00:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Jacobson

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

Biography of a living person without reliable sources. Ref 1. blog, 2. not mentioned in source, 3. not mentioned in source, 4. not mentioned in source, 5. blog, 6. 404, 7. blog, 8. tabloid attack article. See also Cary's m:OTRS Ticket:2009050110020469. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-01t15:45z 15:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a NYT blog. The blogs on the NYT site are labeled as such and have a different set of standards--they aren't independently fact-checked, etc. as regular articles are. I'm not saying that they are or aren't reliable sources but they are blogs not articles. Drawn Some (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. They're the equivalent of columns, with provision for reader responses. The named journalists who write the main article are responsible star journalists for a major newspaper, and their writings are somewhere between specialized reporting and expert opinion. The blog name refers to the opportunity for readers to write their comments--and the readers comments are of course of no authority . In all respects other than the opportunity for facile response, the features are every bit as reliable as if they were in print. DGG (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the speedy tag. G7 requires that you be the only substantial author, yet your complaint seems to be that other editors have added content of which you disapprove. You can't have it both ways. Rklear (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete page, there is no reason to have her in wiki with the blog cites. if you cant delete just take out paragragh in question. that would be a compromise solution.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janaa22 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE PAGEi agree compromise is solution for this issue here... it seems very suspicious why there is such interest in this woman and that the insertion of the paragragh in question came many many months after the "event" that actually never took place! all so silly and it seems as if someone is trying to malign her. What "anonymous" person whould be so interested in this person as to insert a blog comment about her -- about an event that NEVER even took place! just either take the entry out - to compromise or take the page out if we all cant agree. and by the way... have the person identify themselves and prove there is not malice here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardg5438 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE this whole page and argument seems like such a waste of energy. why do people care so much about this person? just be done with this and either remove the page or take out the paragraph in question. and you are right -- if someone cares so---- much its hard to believe this is not driven by personal vandetta!!!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan–Serbia relations

edit
Kazakhstan–Serbia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination. non resident ambassadors, no bilateral agreements. just some mainly 1 way trade from Kazakhstan [51]. LibStar (talk) 15:25, 1 May 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 00:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moustache May

edit
Moustache May (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. May be restored if additional substantial sources concerning this relationship are found.  Sandstein  06:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia–Serbia relations

edit
Indonesia–Serbia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Aside from the Tito-Sukarno friendship (already mentioned at Non-Aligned Movement) and Indonesian non-recognition of Kosovo (amply detailed at International recognition of Kosovo), there seems to be nothing here; hence, we should delete. Biruitorul Talk 15:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep That different parts ares included in other articles is no reason not to also put it in a more comprehensive summary one. No evidence that a search for additional material, such as trade between the countries, has been made. DGG (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you're proposing is turning this article into a coatrack: "The Indonesian and Yugoslav dictators were friends. 50 years later, Indonesia refused to recognise Kosovo's independence". That's not permitted by policy. - Biruitorul Talk 16:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read policies before trying to apply them. That Indonesia and Serbia have had a notable relationship that's covered a variety of grounds doesn't have anything to do with coatracking, which is where you claim an article is about one thing but it's about something else. The nonaligned movements, the backing of Serbia over separatist regions because of Indonesias concerns, et cetera, are all aspects of their long relationship.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Pakistan relations

edit
Croatia–Pakistan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Two far-flung countries with no real ties; bilateral relations are not inherently notable, so this should go. Biruitorul Talk 15:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

an da good many kept. I think we'll be revisiting some of those above. DGG (talk) 04:47, 4 May 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. I have to discount Stifle's comment, which is a mere link to a policy page. I'm not discounting the appeals to the length of the diplomatic relationship, since it represents a not unreasonable inference that relevant material exists. (Although I'd rather we not rely on such inferences in deletion discussions, I can't dismiss the argument out of hand.)  Sandstein  06:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria–Norway relations

edit
Bulgaria–Norway relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No hint this pairing may be notable, so we should delete. Biruitorul Talk 15:13, 1 May 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 00:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria–Uzbekistan relations

edit
Bulgaria–Uzbekistan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability through reliable sources. Biruitorul Talk 15:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If any entry shows that no source will ever be considered "significant coverage" it is this response to the massive amount of references. Ikip (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unsourced stub, without even a bare assertion of notability. I can find no reliable independent sources that discuss this obscure bilateral relationship (how obscure? According to our unsourced stub, Uzbekistan houses the guy who's supposed to be tending this relationship with Bulgaria in... Uzbekistan.)Bali ultimate (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You found no sources at all? Perhaps WilyD can give you some pointers on how to search for things, since he had no trouble doing so. Dream Focus 15:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read any of them? The first one is a newspaper article titled "Uzbek-Bulgarian Relations Are Developing Dynamically", which provides clear examples of the relationship between the two nations. Dream Focus 15:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the complete disregard of WilyD's 36 references is incredibly troubling. Ikip (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Locke9k. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I clicked on the first link provided [124] and it clearly shows the relationship between the two nations, that what they discussing, they signing a human rights treaty together, and speaking of various opportunities of the two nations working together. Honestly now. Will the closing administrator please make a note of which editors say "delete" without actually checking the facts, and ignore their arbitrary "deletes" in other articles like this? Dream Focus 15:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep per WileyD. The first source he found is an in depth write up focussed specifically on the relationship, and from a reliable secondary source - its now been added to the article - and there are plenty more sources for further exspansion! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have pasted the sources identified by WilyD into the "External Links" section, and started adding titles etc. prior to creating sourced content in the main body of the article. Wily provided way too many sources. Surely no more than 20 independent sources discussing the subject are enough to establish notability? :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:28, 6 May 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya–Serbia relations

edit
Kenya–Serbia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This relationship fails WP:N, particularly as no sources establishing notability are forthcoming. Biruitorul Talk 15:13, 1 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania – Saudi Arabia relations

edit
Romania – Saudi Arabia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Random combination; no assertion or evidence of notability; fails WP:N. Biruitorul Talk 15:13, 1 May 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria–Malaysia relations

edit
Bulgaria–Malaysia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

a non notable combination. non resident embassies. google news search shows up nothing [147] LibStar (talk) 15:09, 1 May 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 Redirected to Spring (hydrosphere) as a duplicate article. Tavix |  Talk  15:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spring-water

edit
Spring-water (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TV Ball

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

Made-up game, cites Wikipedia articles, unnotable ViperSnake151  Talk  14:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It died due to WP:NOTFOREVERYDAMNWAYOFSAYINGSOMETHINGMADEINTOANALLCAPSSTRING :) DMacks (talk) 21:29, 1 May 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 00:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy See–India relations

edit
Holy See–India relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

article contains very little evidence of relationship with Vatican. could easily be covered in Roman Catholicism in India. LibStar (talk) 14:47, 1 May 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Strout

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

No reliable sources that would satisfy WP:BIO or other evidence of passing WP:PROF. Was prodded, but the prod was removed without improvement to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:32, 1 May 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 article does have a standard for inclusion though this is not followed as it should be. Tagging for cleanup. Malinaccier (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of roads in Baltimore County, Maryland

edit
List of roads in Baltimore County, Maryland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List consisting of many nonnotable named roads that is poorly organized. Dough4872 (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no standards for inclusion. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is a standard for inclusion, "major and notable roads". Seemingly ones with articles or that could have articles. Being poorly organized and containing many nonnotable examples isn't a reason to delete an article, it's a reason to edit it. Deletion isn't punishment/cleanup. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virtually all of these roads listed here could have either standalone articles or be redirected somewhere. This list does not include side streets or other extremely minor roads. Sebwite (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The primary reason I nominated this article for deletion is that despite the fact it includes some notable roads, it also includes some unnumbered roads that do not seem to demonstrate notability, such as Cockeys Mill Road, which appears to be a relatively short local road that runs to a dead end [149]. There are many other suburban counties throughout the United States that have similar numbers of these type of roads, and they do not have canocial lists. Baltimore County is no exception. Dough4872 (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made most of this list. While some roads like this do seem minor, I felt that if a road had a notable landmark on it, even if it could not have a standalone article, it could be listed here for informational purposes as the road that the landmark is on. Obviously, I would not list the run-of-the-mill side street that is lined with residential houses, but has little if anything else. Sebwite (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Judging by the contents and the name of the article, this doesn't just include roads that pass Wikipedia's notability criteria. Perhaps "list of major roads...", with "major" requiring an article, would be useful (no problems with criteria), but in its current state there's nothing keeping out the problem roads. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here are the total lack of references. I could about accept including roads that are referenced within the linked article, but the unlinked roads need references or be cut (along with the minor roads that don't belong here to begin with) - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those that are linked, it is a well-accepted practice on Wikipedia that references are not required on lists. As for those that are not linked, any map serves as a reference for those that are unlinked. The information that is provided is what you can find in a map, such as where it starts and ends, what areas it passes through, or what landmarks are located along the road. If there were any additional information listed in the "notes" column, they would then have to be referenced. I actually included links to locations on Google Maps in a few places so the reader could "get a picture" of certain place. Sebwite (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gurds

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

WP:MADEUP. Ironholds (talk) 14:21, 1 May 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. Nja247 08:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Malaysia relations

edit
Cyprus–Malaysia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination. non resident embassies. Google news search doesn't reveal much. all I could find is one mention of Malaysia on the Cyprus/Turkey issue. [150] LibStar (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above, where's the significant third party coverage to prove notable bilateral relations? LibStar (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a bilateral relationship of so little import to the nations involved that they don't bother with embassies in each others capitals. There are no reliable sources that discuss this relationship. Delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:24, 6 May 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zamboanga City hotels

edit
Zamboanga City hotels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD contested. Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOT). And unlike, say Las Vegas, there is nothing particularly notable about the hotels of this city. seav (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nja247 08:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria–Holy See relations

edit
Algeria–Holy See relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

current article contains zero evidence of relations between Algeria and the state of the Holy See. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is plenty of evidence for Vatican-Algeria relations. The Vatican is not the same as the Church and so it often acts a foreign secular power in the country. In fact, it has been fairly active in the country since the independence from the French. For instance, it has intervened in critical moments in the Algeria's recent history, such as during the human rights abuses that occured in the Algerian civil war [151] ADM (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we can't really use an interview with a Vatican official as a reliable source; there's plenty of room at Christianity in Algeria to cover anything notable here. - Biruitorul Talk 15:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the present and recent material, there will be historic relations going back centuries. Just needs expansion.~
  • Keep The Catholic Church has a long history in what is now Algeria dating pre-1000s, had a very strong presence there when it was a French colony and played an important intermediary, if sometimes contentious, role in the Algerian War with the French. [152][153]. The Vatican and Algeria relations has continued making news since. [154][155][156][157]--Oakshade (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Vatican may be a small country, but it still wields substantial influence, and its relationship with Algeria has been notable since the war for independence. See [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] and those already noted, anyone can easily dig up stacks more. WilyD 18:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N and not a directory. Foreign relations of the 203 sovereign countries are best discussed in the article about the country, or a standalone article if a major country, rather than in 20,000 such binary stubs. A link to the country's foreign ministry website will provide more up-to-date info than a robostub created and neglected. The history of Catholics in the country would be better covered by a mention of that in the article on the country than by trying to use that history to assert notability for this article.Edison (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Have added some content to the article with sources that establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that "Holy See" is always what we run into in this context. I don't know why that is, but I'm guessing that "Holy See" is more accurate in some way or another. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Holy See has historical legal rights because it also has authority over territories that are outside the Vatican (cf properties of the Holy See). Also, if Vatican leaders were ever to acquire other small territories such as a small island in the Pacific, then the island would be placed under the jurisdiction of the Holy See. Technically, the Holy See used to own several states, such as the Pontifical States, and while the Vatican is currently the only one left, this would not really prevent the Holy See from acquiring any more in the future if an opportunity ever came up. Also, the Holy See is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church ; the Church is the 1 billion laypeople and clergy, while the Holy See is the episcopal and temporal government. Because of this, the articles about Holy See relations should give priority to diplomatic and political matters instead of issues that are exclusively related to the Church. ADM (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • O.k. I stand corrected - the name should stay. The relations are with the Holy See as the government of the Catholic Church, not with the tiny sovereign state of the Vatican. I see the term "the Vatican" used more often, but I suppose in the same way that "Beijing" could be used in place of "China" in a headline. I agree that the article should be about diplomatic and political relations only, but would like to give a small amount of historical background. My guess is that the section on "Algerian Independence" as it stands will puzzle 95% of readers. ADM - maybe could you restore just enough to give context? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:02, 3 May 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Hansard

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

Contested PROD. Subject of the article is an actor who does not appear to fulfill WP:ENTERTAINER. bonadea contributions talk 13:12, 1 May 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 to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8Eight

edit
8Eight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NMUSIC RadioFan (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. What does the non-availability of sales figures have to do with notability? Very few of our articles about musicians, authors, artists etc. have this information. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Caspian Blue. I don't know whether its me but I'm starting to get pretty annoyed with Radio Fan's constant new page patrol and plastering of tags. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, time really went by fast. I'm gonna save the article today by expanding contents with sources. --18:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not just you. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has strong claims to notability under WP:MUSIC by winning a major competition (criterion 9) and releasing three albums (criterion 5), and an established editor who reads Korean has said that there is significant coverage in reliable sources, so we should assume good faith and keep this without putting pressure on anyone to edit this article to a deadline. I would also add that nobody asking for deletion has given any indication of any efforts check whether the article does pass notability criteria. Two of them just say that the subject fails WP:MUSIC without saying why the claims to pass two criteria are incorrect, and the other bizarrely says that the unavailability of precise sales figures for albums is a reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 6 May 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 00:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of the world's largest organs (was Organs not in Europe or the USA with 80 or more stops or 5 or 6 manuals)

edit
Organs not in Europe or the USA with 80 or more stops or 5 or 6 manuals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unmaintainable list containing unpublished synthesis of materials RadioFan (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason listed above.

Organs in Europe with 5 or 6 manuals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Organs in Europe with 100 or more stops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Organs in Europe with 80-99 stops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lists of the world’s largest pipe organs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lists of the world's largest organs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comment Please see above, I'd not quite finished the nomination when you commented, there are a lot of articles here. The generic list of largest organs may be able to meet notability guidelines but I wanted to list them all here for discussion purposes and since there are 2 generic lists for some reason (pipe organs and just organs).--RadioFan (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand your argument correctly, that this should be kept as a list about lists, such a list is WP:OR and would just be personal opinion of the editor(s) compiling the list. Also, as a collection of external links or an internet directory, it is contrary to WP:NOTLINK.  JGHowes  talk 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piano (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, no indication that the song has charted, no, 3rd party references RadioFan (talk) 12:33, 1 May 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. Nja247 08:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left-Islamist alliance

edit
Left-Islamist alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - Highly POV article, based on synthesis and original research, apparently designed to present several separate incidents as an organised movement. Article is full of unattributed characterisations and well-poisoning. It was originally nominated for speedy deletion as an attack article, but the tag was removed by another editor. RolandR (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I declined the speedy because in my view it was a sourced attack as opposed to an unsourced one, so any deletion should be decided at AFD not CSD. I think the topic probably should have an article but am not sure whether this article has yet been sufficiently salvaged, though I've done some rewriting of it and therefore am neither supporting or opposing this AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 12:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Islamist is being used as a pejorative (in the most extreme way, when in fact definitions vary). I would keep this article no more than Right-Islamist alliance. Dynablaster (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Highly-POV term used very little, and exclusively on highly-POV blogs and weblists. --Duncan (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the author of most of the article I have to point out that three different sources talk about an alliance of "The Left and the Islamists", (Joshua Kurlantzick), "Islamists and the political Left" (Fred Halliday), http://www.ikhwanweb.com/Article.asp?ID=3360&SectionID=83 and "an alliance between the radical Left and hard-line Islamists ..." (Amir Taheri)http://web.archive.org/web/20040621173829/http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/5163 You can certainly say these sources are highly critical of the alliance but you can't say the concept of a left-Islamist alliance is a synthesis of an editor!
As for "Islamist is being used as a pejorative", If all the comment on an issue is critical does that mean the issue can't qualify for an article in wikipedia? I don't think so but at WereSpielChequers request I will try to find more neutral sources.--BoogaLouie (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a typical case of a fringe topic that is not supported by any clearly third party reliable sources to establish notability. Just linking to a few fringe opinion articles is not enough. There needs to be reliable, mainstream, third party evidence that this belief is widespread enough to be notable. At this time, it should be deleted due to lack of evidence of such notability. Furthermore, were it ever to rise to the level of notability, an article on it would have to be written entirely differently, and likely even have a different name. It would likely have to be named something like "beliefs about a Left-Islamist alliance', and in order to satisfy WP:NPOV it would have to be written from the perspective of describing the belief while balancing it with the mainstream view. Presently, it just appears to promote the view. Nevertheless, the main point is that lack of notability is basis for deletion at this time. Locke9k (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unencyclopedic POV fork. Even if sourced, we could only say that there is a notable theory, opinion, etc. But Wikipedia cannot endorse that there is a conspiracy between liberals and islamists. That seems to be cobbled together here as a personal opinion / synthesis of the article creators - no reliable sources say that such a thing exists. Wikidemon (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wavering either way There is potential for an article on this subject, but it needs sourcing that is not just to opinion columns in the general and political press. It also needs to be able to take in the complexity of the issue as covered in this article [163] which makes it clear that the last thing substantial sections of the left want to do is be soft on revolutionary Islam.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:16, 2 May 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive

edit
Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

1. Article does not demonstrate subject's notability. See article talk page. 2. Article appears to be edited mostly by a user very involved in the subject organization/project. ~PescoSo say•we all 04:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 3. There are no or not enough sources of info independant of the article subject to demonstrate widespread notability. All reference sources are based on the work of the principal investigator. ~PescoSo say•we all 15:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book/paper appears to be cowritten by the main contributor of the article, DavidLevinson. It is a primary source since he appears to be the chief researcher. 1. This doesn't seem to be "significant" coverage, and 2. the whole article could be considered self promotion. ~PescoSo say•we all 13:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. You're right. Since both links are not third-party sources and I can find no other sources for this article, this travel survey archive is non-notable. Delete. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the google book link is a collection of papers edited by Peter Stopher, a professor at the University of Sydney and someone who has earned a PhD. This probably means that the publication meets the criteria to be considered (Wikipedia:Reliable#Scholarship) scholarly material by the guideline of WP:Reliable Sources. If it is scholarly, then the WP:Policy of WP:Verifiability says that this source trumps all others. The fact that the same person wrote the scholarly paper as wrote the content in WikiPedia is irrelevant to me. It is not like he is making any red flag claims. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The paper by User:DavidLevinson is a reliable source, but it doesn't appear to be a third-party source. Levinson is affilicated with the Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive, since he was one of the people who was "helpful in building this resource". I can't make up my mind whether this article should be kept or not, so I will remain neutral. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how the paper can be used as a reliable source. It's his project, and he authored the reference. ~PescoSo say•we all 05:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Keep Yes I am the Principal Investigator on the project. The article is verifiable, hence the independent Urban Transport Monitor link, which was provided. I wish it were popular enough for the New York Times, but clearly it is too technical. The archive has been used by other researchers and is important infrastructure in travel behavior research, but itself is not going to be the subject of too many articles. It is really disappointing wikipedia no longer lives up to the goal "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. -- Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. dml (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David, thank you for acknowledging your possible conflict of interest up front. I have been involved before in drawn out discussions with other editors where they never admit as such. To me, the simple admission goes a long way to reducing the WP:COI and achieving the suggestion on WP:COI to "exercise great caution". Now anyone who wants to comment (including Pesco) can make his own choice to consider or discount any remarks you make in this discussion. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on his contributions to the article and to this discussion I have listed it at WP:COIN. His admission, while appreciated, only happened after I already noted his involvement. How has "great caution" been exercised? He created an article about the project he is the director of, he wrote or heavily contributed to all references that could be used, and he's voted to keep the article in this discussion. Jimmy Whales also said "This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty." How can you be neutral if all the research is your own? On top of it, an admin should go above and beyond to avoid any hint of a conflict of interest. ~PescoSo say•we all 05:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was hardly a secret, my user name is my real name (sans a space, due to the fact that in the early days of wikipedia everything was CamelCase) unlike most people here. That said, I am not the primary source or author of the Urban Transportation Monitor article. Also COI policies came about well after (1) the article was written, and (2) I was an admin. Finally, so long as the COI is noted, (and I think my user name discloses everything anyone wants to know), and the article is unbiased (judge for yourself) COI (in the real world) does not necessarily require recusal, just disclosure. dml (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing on your user page or talk page that says your are the Principal Investigator of the Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive. I only connected your name with the project after looking through things for a while. "It was hardly a secret" is not the same as disclosing a relationship. I admit the COI may have been implemented/modified after the article was created, but it exists now, and so I think that should determine whether you cast votes on anything regarding this article. ~PescoSo say•we all 15:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I kindly remind you about WP:COI since you are the Principal Investigator. That includes comments on article deletion. You're a Wikipedia admin, so I'm surprised COI has to be brought up. Also, the reference you mention is an article in a trade publication that heavily quotes you, almost making it a primary source. ~PescoSo say•we all 21:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This "trade" publication is (1) currently credited to an editor with a PhD and a P.E., and (2) has been published for 22 years. I would have to consider that a WP:RELIABLE source. The only negative is that the article is not directly credited to an author. However, it is more of a "newsletter" format, and crediting each article is not always done in that format. Based on the editors qualifications and the publishing record of this "trade" publication, it cannot be considered a "self-published source." To me, these two factors (reliable and not self-published) mean that there is no way it could be considered a primary source. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the trade article, my impression is that most/all of the info of note was obtained from the Principal Investigator. If the subject were actually notable there would be plenty of reliable sources that are truly independant of DavidLevinson. ~PescoSo say•we all 05:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Srong Keep. I find the sources to be reliable per my comments above; there are two separate PhD's that have found the material contained in this article to be worthy of publication and have backed it up as "editor".
    Even though it is admitted that the creator of the article has a conflict of interest, there are no extraordinary claims made therein. The article is kept short and factual. The subject of "data abandonment" will become more of an issue in the future, and this article covers that subject (and efforts to prevent it) for one small technical area. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did these two seperate PhD's independantly verify anything about the project? While I still question whether they are "reliable sources", notability is the big issue, I think, and the COI makes this all very messy. If David did not create the article himself, do you think it would exist right now? There doesn't appear to be any independant analysis/commentary of the project. It all seems to be generated by him, one way or the other. Based on this, I don't think its notability is demonstrated. ~PescoSo say•we all 06:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article in the book lists 21 references used in writing the article. Written by a PhD, edited by a PhD, the publisher [164] has been in business for 40 years and specializes in acedemic publishing. To me, it is of a quality that a doctoral student could use as a reference for his own thesis. I would certainly accept it as a reference for any traffic engineer working on one of my projects. The newsletter would work too, but probably not for a thesis paper reference. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 12:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There appears to be a chapter in this book about the archive in addition to the other references. This seems to be one of those situations where something is notable but still not well-known outside of a specialized field. There would probably be no article without someone with a conflict of interest writing it in the first place but that is not a reason to delete. Drawn Some (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That is the same book that is discussed above. Just found on Amazon versus Google. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same book, and that chapter is the same one that is written by David Levinson. If the only references are based on the paid professional in charge of the project, is it really that notable? I don't think there are any sources that are independent enough of David. I'm sure his work is good for his field, and I would want to tell other people about my work, also, but notability is established when other people write about the work. Not when those involved in project get their own work widely disseminated.~PescoSo say•we all 15:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not contesting the accuracy of what's said, but Wikipedia articles have to prove notability. I wish someone would address how this article meets notability, considering all of the references are David's work being disseminated. ~PescoSo say•we all 17:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is noted above that Urban Transportation Montitor article is not written by the same David Levinson. This makes it a WP:SECONDARY source as required by the WP:Notability guideline. "Quoting" the primary source is exactly what a reliable secondary source is supposed to do. Also as noted above, this publication is currently edited by a person with a PhD and a professional engineering license. It has been published for 22 years. If that does not qualify it as a WP:RELIABLE source then I don't why I bother looking for sources at all. If it is still in business after 22 years, they must be doing something right about reaching their target audience. (Yes, this presumes market penetration. However it seems to me to be a resonable presumption.)
Since traffic surveys are a specialized field in the subject of traffic engineering (which is a specialized sub-field of civil engineering), one cannot expect Time (magazine) or the New York Times to cover this issue. People will always be more interest in Britney's latest antics or what kind of dog is living in the White House.
This is why the notability guideline says notability sources SHOULD be secondary. Because there are numerous technical fields where one has to accept primary sources. The TWO primary sources written by David Levinson (and currently listed in the article) are third-party published. This increases their reliability. Under the WP:NPOV policy, it is clear that these sources may be used. Please read WP:PRIMARY.
The source I added to the article from the USDOT website is another primary source (they are funding the project), but it is self-published. However, in the fields of traffic and transportation engineering, the USDOT is widely accepted as an authoritative, reliable source.
These sufficiently combine to establish notability to me. It is clear that they will not be enough for you. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This subject of the article is federally funded as shown by one of the references. This is not in itself enough for notability but I believe it contributes to notability and verifiability. Drawn Some (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

\

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Robinson

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

A locally known blogger with no evidence of RS coverage about her work. There are ghits not surprisling for a blogger but nothing significant and nothing that indicates her work passes WP:CREATIVE. Of the references in the article, the first doesn't work, the second does't mention her (and I'm not sure Hunger Hero is a major award) and the third is a local paper mentioning a local blog. Nothing that establishes notability. Subject or rep is currently adding links to the article all over the place to de-orphan. Thoughts? StarM 11:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia–Cyprus relations

edit
Colombia–Cyprus relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random laughable combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embasssies. and just 1 minor agreement between the 2 countries [165]. LibStar (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-Paraguayan relations

edit
Greek-Paraguayan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random laughable combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. 2 minor agreements, even the Greek govt says bilateral trade relations between Greece and Paraguay are very limited AND Since the number is small, there is no organized Greek Community in Paraguay. LibStar (talk) 11:19, 1 May 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. Given that all "keep" opinions except ChildofMidnight's are specified to be weak, I'm closing this guided by the "do no harm" principle of WP:BLP.  Sandstein  06:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward des Clayes

edit
Edward des Clayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Edward des Clayes wants article deleted for fear of bias against him by future employers— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcballeballe (talk • contribs) — Mcballeballe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Weak Keep there is sourcing covering his suit, which is porbably equally findably by future employers but I am senstive to subject's wishes so weak keep at this moment StarM 12:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the creator of the article puts this up for deletion, I say delete. Ikip (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I was tempted to opt for a delete - as per the request which I am extremly sympathetic to - but the article is sourced and notable. I've not come across a similar case before. Is there a policy or guidline that relates to this? The problem is how do we know this is Edward des Clayes asking for deletion. This equally could be the employers trying to delete this because of the adverse publicity. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:29, 1 May 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. Mgm|(talk) 09:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joos Horsten

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

Non-notable businessman, no other significant activities or discoveries. MBisanz talk 16:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 10:13, 1 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectPier

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

While the article seems to be about a fully developed and published groupware system, I don't believe it meets the general notability guidelines. Any editor is welcome to prove me wrong, though! KhalfaniKhaldun 05:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 09:58, 1 May 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. Nja247 08:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Studiotraffic

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

Article about a web company with very suspicious business practices, that currently cites no real sources. I tried as best I could to find any kind of reliable source for this company, but nothing turned up. The google hits, although at about ~70,000, contain nothing suitable. Many of the hits aren't about the website, and those that are all seem to be one or another kind of self-published source. It's very true that the company is presently under investigation by the US department of justice, but even that has only been mentioned in blogs and forums. So in conclusion, this company has done nothing but get some customers to complain about it on the internet, and get itself placed under an investigation that hasn't even generated a press release. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 09:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google news search yields mostly false friends and blog / message board posts. Does not appear to be a notable crime. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added 4 reliable links to show what the original page looked like on the last day it was up (Mar 29, 2006). I did this for both Studiotraffic and Studiopay. In addition I provided a link to the legal action taken by the Oklahoma Department of Securities back in 2006. Also, I have been providing information to a Syracuse, NY newspaper which is about to publish an article on the DOJ prosecution of one of Studiotraffic/Studiopay's manager's for wire fraud. Once the article is published I will link this also. This should happen within the next few days. I am continuing to add new sources/references/links. I should mention that one major reason for the lack of "proof" of this being a scam is the long time it has taken to (1) locate the responsible parties, (2) collect the evidence, (3) keep the investigation "private" inside the DOJ/FBI/NY Police. The authorities are very reluctant to release any information on their ongoing investigation even if it takes years as is the case here. This prosecution of a Studiotraffic/StudioPay manager in New York will be the 1st legal case brought to an end. Of course the "big guy" in this is still out there "John Horan". Berkeleyman (talk) 18:14, 1 May 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. Nja247 08:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raphaël (JavaScript Library)

edit
Raphaël (JavaScript Library) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was PRODed, but I felt it better discussed first. It is pretty highly linked on Google, but it is difficult to find RS do to the generic name of the software. The fact that it is used on a couple major websites at least indicates the possibility that it is notable. I'm neutral for now. ThaddeusB (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- Blogs are typically not considered reliable sources and there is only 1 (one) ZDNet Asia article, the two linked are the same (one is just a print version). Also, just because a product is used does not establish notability. 16x9 (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 09:56, 1 May 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. Wikipedia is not a directory listing, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Notability has not been established for the (otherwise arbitrary) intersection of subjects "supermarket chains" and "Bahrain". SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of supermarket chains in Bahrain

edit
List of supermarket chains in Bahrain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list of supermarket chains in a particular place is not notable. This isn't even a list of supermarkets, just chains. Other lists like this one are List of restaurant chains in Bahrain, List of parks and gardens in Bahrain, List of movie theatres in Bahrain, List of beaches in Bahrain, and List of hotels in Bahrain none of which appear notable. Mohummy (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very notable article because the people have the right to know the supermarket chains in the Kingdom of Bahrain. This article is very similar to List of supermarket chains in Belgium.Canadian (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is notable about a list of stores? Wikipedia doesn't recognize notability because something similar is an article, see WP:WAX. Frankly, the Belgium one looks equally non-notable and I've marked it as such. Mohummy (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this is a clear case of what Wikipedia is not. A list is relevant if it contains an encyclopedic article along with it. Wikipedia is not intended to be a catalog or phonebook. There are plenty of relevant places on the web for such things, but the rules of this site plainly state that this is not one of them. Perhaps if the page advised about the relevance of supermarkets in Bahrain, and how they are notable from a neutral point of view; then it would have a purpose here. JogCon (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or make the list a category. Ikip (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The resulting list would be a shortened phone book directory which Wikipedia is not. I disagree that Lists of parks and beaches are similar because those are features of the city rather than businesses and a list of hotels could be useful for Wikitravel, if we've got the whole license thing sorted out. - Mgm|(talk) 08:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. is article does not in any way resemble a phonebook. It is a preliminary step toward creating articles for the chain themselves. Once this article is kept in wikipedia, it creates a base for further writing posts for the supermarket themselves. these things do take time and one cannot expect the articles on the markets to spring up over night. as i recall the supermarkets are relevant because as of now, one of the chains does have an article spinneys and Al Muntazah. this list is revelevant once again because it simplifies the experiance for users. it would not work as a category because the articles on the mentioned supermarkets will be written. it does take some time. Canadian (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks pretty useful to me. This will make the wikipedia community become more aware of the structures and the businesses located in Bahrain. MacGyverMagic pointed out that a list of parks would be useful for Wikitravel, but one can also argue that a list of supermarkets would be equally important. If with more research, one can add articles for the supermarkets themselves, then wikipedia would become more complete. Chicagocubsfan (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC) — Chicagocubsfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
User:Chicagocubsfan is a new user who appears to be a follower of User:Canadian, is this an independent opinion? Mohummy (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list and items in wikipedia must be notable and verifiable. Nothing in this article indicates these stores are notable. Mohummy (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion Mohummy, first wikipedia is full of lists. list of airlines, car makers, gdps, goes on and on. second, this list of supermarkets for a particular country is nothing new, there are lists from belgium, bulgaria and country X and Y. This article is wholly relevant. Canadian (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a directory listing. This currently contains no encyclopedic material, and of the chains listed only one currently makes an assertation of notability. There's nothing saying why Bahrain is so special of a place for supermarket chains, and I can't find any reliable sources to add to the zero that we have to claim it does. ThemFromSpace 08:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 09:47, 1 May 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 Islamic schools and branches. I did not close as Merge since there does not appear to be any sourced material to merge, although if someone wants to add sourced information about the Druze and other Islam-related faiths in that article, it would of course be welcome. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quranic religions

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

Stub article composed of unsourced speculation and original research; any useful content can easily be merged into Divisions of Islam. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 09:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nja247 08:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation games

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

non-notable term; I've never seen this used. While games such as "I have never" certainly exist, I've never heard the genre as a whole described as "conversation games". Ironholds (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 09:11, 1 May 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Brownstone

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

non-notable person. Courts of Justice in Canada are really the equivalent of County Courts or Magistrates Courts Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 09:10, 1 May 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Patrick Halligan

edit
Ryan Patrick Halligan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While the fact that this kid committed suicide is sad, Wikipedia is not a place for memorials. Halligan never did anything notable, and was never the subject of multiple secondary sources, at least not any more than any other kid who killed himself, which i'm sure number in the thousands. Google News comes up with nothing, and all the coverage on his memorial website has been trivial, in the context of laws regarding Cyberbullying. The one article in the Boston Globe that looked promising was actually written by his father. Keep in mind that in order for the subject to be notable, he must have done something notable. While his father lobbied to have laws passed, that's not something the kid himself did, and notability is not inherited. Firestorm Talk 19:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Google News comes up with nothing" please revise as per my comments below. Ikip (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article seems to be more than a memorial, in that it covers the aftermath of the suicide, which resulted from cyberbullying, and has a reference which seems to state that the state passed legislation as a result of the incident to restrict the freedom of cyberthogs cyberthugs to bully other children. The "notability is not inherited" argument fails completely when the action of the child (suicide in response to bullying) results in legislation, since the father would never have been involved without the suicide. Every other "Megan's Law" or "Amber Alert" likewise had involvement by family members after the death in getting it implemented, but counted toward notability in a major way in contrast to every other regrettable death of a child. See WP:NOTNEWS. The article's title should reflect the incident and not the previously nonnotable individual. He would have to be supernatural to act following his death and lobby to get a law passed. Edison (talk) 20:00, 18 April 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 17:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Yes it is sad he committed suicide, but people do that every day. Maybe a brief mention in the Cyberbullying article, but thats it. TJ Spyke 17:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 09:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not sufficient for a biographical article when a mention in another article would be more apt. Collect (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The article has now been expanded, including inline cites from reliable sources. The fact that this case is being cited in legislative debates and school programs in several states, debated in law journals, and reported by published, independent news media makes it inherently notable.  JGHowes  talk 17:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this child's story has been the impetus of several enacted statutes related to cyber-bullying. The story may not have been notable when it happpened, but the lobbying efforts by his father have made the story notable.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as not just one event, but an event and its subsequent repercussions in law and society. Nice job with expansion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:22, 2 May 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Adams Society

edit
Douglas Adams Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article concerns a number of university societies that celebrate the works of Douglas Adams. All sources are primary... archives to the socity's termcards and the like, barring one "source" to a self-described alleged overheard conversation. As you'd expect, the article fails all aspects of WP:N; no third party sources of any description that I could find. No material to merge anywhere either. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added citations in the Independent on Sunday and at RPGnet which suggest that the Oxford society's existence was noted by people outside its immediate vicinity. If I had the leisure to go through the paper archives of Isis, Cherwell and The Oxford Student from the 1990s, I could identify more mentions. The York incarnation seems to be getting noticed too, but I'll leave that for others to find references for. (Declaration of interest: yes, I was a member and yes, I've edited the article.) Phil PH (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the Independent source is definitely trivial; establishing existence isn't the issue, but notability. I'm not sure about RPGnet; I've never come across it, or really know what guideline applies when an online role-playing site hosts your pub quiz rules (not being funny, I genuinely don't know!). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 09:06, 1 May 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 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl-Michael Edenborg

edit
Carl-Michael Edenborg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

827 off-wiki hits are not enough to establish the fame of the subject. Alexius08 (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 08:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Edenborg is mainly a local guy and may not meet the notability criteria for scientists. He is the founder (in 1992) and an editor of Vertigo, a small but well known Swedish publishing firm. Article should be kept but may need further polish. -- Kurtan (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is some room for improvement, maybe with the help of Swedish editors? --Vejvančický (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Morris

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

Former member of a disbanded group which came 5th in the X Factor. Fails to meet any of the criteria for inclusion in WP:MUSICBIO. I42 (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 08:52, 1 May 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 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Debin

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

Unsourced biography of an unnotable screenwriter, with just under 2000 off-wiki Google hits. The article remained unedited for almost two years until I tagged the named article. Alexius08 (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 08:51, 1 May 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 15:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aviaction

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

magazine with no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 08:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but there is no evidence to suggest that this magazine is notable. Simply being published doesn't make something notable; vanity presses, anyone? Magazines and so on are not free from WP:ORG just because they themselves can (theoretically) be used as sources. Ironholds (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon Hill (band)

edit
Lemon Hill (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable local band with no albums yet (two that are "upcoming"). Cited sources don't have links, and I was unable to verify the reference to the Sun-Sentinel. 109 unique Google hits for "Lemon Hill" Palermo (name of lead singer), many not about this band. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the citations are in print newspapers they should not require links. The Sun-Sentinel and Insite magazine can be verified, but you need an archived copy which is easily obtained by calling the headquarters. The editor seems to believe that internet verification of the sources is required, but the guidelines for bands do not require that the sources be electronically verifiable. The editor made a mistake when he claimed that the two albums are "upcoming" Only one is upcoming and the other has been released (confusion may have arisen because the name of the album is is "Untitled"). The number of "unique" google hits seems irrelevant because it would otherwise necessitate the need to be electronically active to be considered notable which isn't always the case for every band Popularsoda (talk) 01:53 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 08:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted after removal of AfD tag on articles. See [179] and [180].  Frank  |  talk  03:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nadishan amarasekara

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

Declined WP:PROD. Nearly an A7 speedy. Subject is non-notable.  Frank  |  talk  08:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding duplicate article Nadishan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), created by same editor, to this AfD.  Frank  |  talk  08:54, 1 May 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.

Nickpoint

edit

Result was Speedy redirect --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Article title is misspelled, and an article (Knickpoint) with the correct spelling already exists. I already moved useful material from this article to that one, so it is ready for deletion. Awickert (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - sounds good to redirect instead of delete. Agree - changing my stance to speedy redirect. Awickert (talk) 08:47, 1 May 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. In any case, the sources should be added into the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina – Cyprus relations

edit
Bosnia and Herzegovina – Cyprus relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. I was asked to look for sources. They're not there. Can we agree to delete now? The pairing is as random and lacking in notability as any I've seen. Biruitorul Talk 07:28, 1 May 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 per notability established by Vmenkov. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria–Ukraine relations

edit
Algeria–Ukraine relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Fails WP:N due to lack of sources establishing notability. Biruitorul Talk 07:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Vmenkov has established notability, in a verifiable way with his recent expansion. If only better sources had been brought to the existing article, I would be changing my vote to mergeSynchronism (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need multiple, independent, non-trivial sources, not speculation. - Biruitorul Talk 06:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since i find no reliable sources that discuss this relationship let along multiple ones that pass the level of trivia.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable intersection of countries. Nothing more to state than the location of embassies, which is a violation of WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Generally, I don't think it makes sense to create a "bilateral relations" article unless the creator feels like including some non-trivial material into it (beyond merely the existence of embassies etc). But in this case there seems to be plenty of online sources, at least in Russian, (And maybe in Ukrainian and Arabic too). Basically, the USSR was one of Algeria's major suppliers of weapons, aircraft, etc, and Ukraine, who inherited a large chunk of the USSR's military-industrial complex, wants to keep the good trade going. I've added a few random facts to the article, even though I don't really care much for the subject. Vmenkov (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in English too (added a couple)... Vmenkov (talk) 12:16, 8 May 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. Nja247 08:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Sweden relations

edit
Belarus–Sweden relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Aside from propaganda releases by the Minsk regime and a "memorandum of understanding" (which is a trivial document, and wholly unremarkable), there isn't much there. There is great scope for expansion of Belarus and the European Union, but as the Swedes themselves admit in a summary of relations so boring I'd be surprised if you got to the end, "The level of present Belarusian-Swedish bilateral relations is determined by the general EU position towards Belarus". To the extent Belarus has special relations with Sweden (which it doesn't seem to), those can be mentioned in the Belarus-EU article. Biruitorul Talk 07:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nja247 08:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finland–Romania relations

edit
Finland–Romania relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No plausible claim of notability can be made here. Yes, Romania was an Axis power and Finland was aligned with the Axis, but not only is that made abundantly clear at Axis powers, Romania during World War II and Military history of Finland during World War II, the two countries' interests were very different during the war and (as far as I can tell) they never fought together or cooperated very closely. And yes, they were both in the Soviet sphere of influence, but one wasn't a Communist country and in any case relations weren't especially close; and yes, they're both in the EU, but we have Member State of the European Union for that. In short: they've brushed up against each other, but hardly at a level covered by reliable sources. Biruitorul Talk 07:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep For me, this passes the Google news search test, and most of these combinations don't. These are all from within the last five years:
  • Finnish premier expresses optimism about Romania's EU entry in 2007
  • Finland's president addresses Roma rights issue during Romania visit
  • ROMANIA: PM TO PAY OFFICIAL VISIT TO FINLAND
  • Finnair to launch scheduled service to Bucharest
  • Finnish defence minister visits navy operation center in Romania (in this case, both nations were providing peacekeeping forces in Bosnia). Some might review these and say that it isn't enough; to me, it's evidence that in Helsinki and Bucharest, there is an interest in building ties between the two nations, and that justifies an article. Mandsford (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link 1 is about a declaration from the Finnish PM, about to become President of the European Council, about how he hopes Romania is going to join the EU. Not only is that trivial and something we'd never ever note in Vanhanen's biography or an article on the foreign relations of Romania, but what else was he expected to say? Three of the other links are about visits - yes, one would expect European leaders to visit each other, but the visits say nothing about the relationship as such, and out of the context of material dealing in depth with the Finland-Romania relationship, they mean nothing; finally, that Finnair flies to Bucharest is recorded at Finnair destinations, but that also doesn't say anything about "Finland–Romania relations" as such. - Biruitorul Talk 14:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Mandsford. I don't think all of the links prove relations, but there is definitely something there. Tavix |  Talk  14:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep International cooperation and official visits make up notability. Thats what international relations are about. DGG (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, actually those visits are trivia that would never be mentioned anywhere except in this series of nonsense articles; they would never appear in, say, the visitors' biographies. There is no source discussing Finland-Romania relations as such, only components of what Wikipedians think is part of that relationship - a classic WP:SYNTH breach.- Biruitorul Talk 16:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mansford makes the case that this article meets WP:N, and Biruitorul fails to make an argument that this is a highly exceptional article that merits a highly irregular treatment. No reason not to follow the usual practice. WilyD 18:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The usual practice is WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage of a topic. We don't have that here. We have a no-content declaration, a business decision by an airline which is recorded elsewhere in any event, and three reports of visits that would never be covered in their subjects' biographies and are meaningless out of context. We have zero sources discussing "Finland–Romania relations" as such. - Biruitorul Talk 18:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Asserting that we don't have significant coverage here when there is significant coverage here only shows that you're either uninformed or deliberately misrepresenting the situation. Either way, your argument holds no water, since it is based on false premises. Cheers, WilyD 19:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, we certainly don't have significant coverage of Finland-Romania relations as such. We have, as I said, a no-content declaration, a business decision by an airline which is recorded elsewhere in any event, and three reports of visits that would never be covered in their subjects' biographies and are meaningless out of context. That is coverage, regular news coverage, of trivial events, but it is in no way significant coverage of Finland-Romania relations. Wikipedia rules don't permit editors to just declare bits of trivia as evidence of a notable relationship of some sort; we need in-depth coverage of the relationship in question, as such. - Biruitorul Talk 19:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since the significant coverage has already been presented here, anyone evaluating the situation can see that your argument rests on premises already demonstrated to be flatly false. Beyond that, since there is in depth coverage of their relationship, the usual practice (WP:N) is to keep an article on the subhject. Of course, usual practice is not a rule, and if you could present a compelling case why this needs to be treated very differently from how we would treat any other class of article, please feel free to do so. WilyD 20:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, no, there isn't any in-depth coverage of their relationship. Sure, we have a no-content declaration, a business decision, and three reports on visits that no source validates the relevance of to the purported subject, but that doesn't make these about the relationship (one that, you may have noticed, has been going on for many decades, and for which a few news bulletins from the last 3 years simply cannot substitute for in-depth coverage), no matter how hard one tries. - Biruitorul Talk 21:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability and Wikipedia is not a directory. Better to mention foreign relations in the article about each country than to have an article about each "relationship" they have with one of the other 203 sovereign countries, since such bilateral article could total 20,000 or so for all pairs of countries. They may have cooperated in some projects. that is a normal part of being a country. We do not need tens of thousands of such articles any more than we need articles about every celebrity's "relationships" with every other celebrity, or "relationships" or contracts between large companies, which also exist and both of which have more news coverage than most of these "relationships." Edison (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • English Wikipedia already has almost three million articles, most on subjects far less notable than this (though generally deemed notable enough for inclusion). Even if 20K articles were written on the subject, it'd be a drop in the bucket, like devoting a page or two of Britannica to bilateral relations (in total, for all pairs). WilyD 21:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Since there are other crappy, as yet undeleted articles, we should give up on being an encyclopedia and become a big overstuffed drawer full of any stub someone creates about nonnotable things, racing for the lowest common denominator, so that the very worst article is the only one we can delete? When the information could be better accessed by a link to the current list of consulates/ambassadors in an article about "Foreign relations of X?" Puh-leese! Edison (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations has some well thought out advice (see Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral relations) for when bilateral relations between two nations are notable. This article does not even assert to meet any of them. Locke9k (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which version of that page you're referring to. I've been watching an edit war going on between the participants. No article is required to "meet" the an individual editor's opinion about how things should be. Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about guideline talks For the record, the proposal Locke refers to is that a relationship between two nations should be considered notable if (a) They have been engaged in a war. (b) They engage in significant trade. (c) They have been/are in an alliance. (d) They share a border. (e) They have been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict. and (f) They have been engaged in a significant trade dispute. Other than two obvious keeps-- sharing a common border or fighting a war against each other-- the rest of them come back to WP:N when we debate what's significant, or what would be an alliance. Personally, I think that keeping an article because the nations have been in an alliance is inclusionism at its worst-- Iceland and Albania don't really have a relationship, but we would give that a pass because they're both in NATO? Gimme a break. Then there are other things-- does foreign aid fall under trade? What if the leaders of the two nations have been working on building ties? What if trade and investment are increasing? Ultimately, it all comes back to WP:N and, whether we like to admit it or not, your opinion and my opinion about whether the material found in a search for sources. Mandsford (talk) 16:46, 2 May 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 whatsoever. I would not be surprised, however, to see this back at AFD before long unless it is cleaned up and improved. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlabeled sexual orientation

edit
Unlabeled sexual orientation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

POV fork of Pomosexual. Page was created as a redirect to Pomosexual by Cooljuno411 (talk · contribs) and then branched out of Pomosexual by the same user - a user who has been blocked previously for the POV edit warring regarding similar issues with {{Sexual orientation}}. Template talk:Sexual orientation contains a wealth of related information. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anthrosexual is different then an unlabeled sexual orientation..... it's kinda in the name.... anthroseuxal literly means "human sexual".... your atracted to humans.... it's more to imply you see past gender, and see just people, not men women, or other genders. Not to be rude, but you are very lacking when it comes to topics in the WHOLE extent of LGBT community.... I'm sorry, but the world is no longer "gay, straight and bi".... there are MANY labels out there. Maybe because i am younger, i am not burdened by a 20th century mind set. But like i said, not to be rude, but you are lacking in the more broader sense of sexual orientation. --cooljuno411 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't need a lesson on the difference. You moved Anthrosexual to Undefined sexuality during the Anthrosexual Afd, did you not? And then Undefined sexuality was deleted per that Afd, was it not? Case closed. And let's keep the borderline personal attacks to ourselves, please? Thanks. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 20:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, changing your opinions does not show weakness, it shows that you are doing nothing but advancing oneself. YOu have to consolidate your assests you plan to protect, then allow them to bloom when they are tolerated.--cooljuno411 01:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ASE, I made my comment based upon looking at the last version of Anthrosexual before it was deleted. Despite the similarity in names of some versions of the article, the content was very different. (I'll be glad to userfy a copy for anyone who wants to see it; drop me a note on my talk page if you want it.) LadyofShalott 02:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — the contents of this article could theoretically be merged or somehow woven into other more appropriate places, but overall it smells an awful lot like Original Research. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 06:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merged back into Pomosexual where it came from in the first place would be acceptable, since the 2 articles are practically the same thing. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On a technical note you should not propose a merge if you also are proposing deletion, since a merge is a form of keep. The only time merge and delete is acceptable is if the redirect that would be left behind is objectionable, since it causes issues with maintaining the edit history. Gigs (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. I see no need to merge since there is very little worth saving. Gigs (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Not POV, cleanly referenced on the sexual orientation article itself with references from the American Phycological Association.

    "Though people may use other labels, or ------>none at all<---- [5], sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual."

    The article itself even has many references, this POV is a joke. Pomosexual is a coined term, which in itself causes cotroversy because it itself is a label. The generic fact of not labeling your sexual orientation is not burdand with the label conundrum. I think the nominator of this deletion thinks too much in the 20th century.... i'm sorry, but just because your uneducated on topic, doesn't mean it is POV. Read the article, there is even scientific surveys that involve unlabeled sexual orientations.--cooljuno411 07:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, there are notable people who do not identify with a sexual Orientation, look at the article. When Aubrey O'Day was asked if she was bisexual, she replied I DON'T LABEL MY SEXUAL OREINTATION, not I'm pomosexual. As i have said before, pomosexual and unlabeled sexual orienation are similar, but the fact that pomosexual intails a label, makes them different. Just how there is a difference between saying "i have sex with men" and "i am homosexual"--cooljuno411 07:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference from Planned Parenthood mentions the word "unlabeled" at the bottom of a long list of words which refer somehow to various nuances of sexual orientations, and at best it seems like a technicality. I have been unable to find any scholarly works or any kind of textbook references whatsoever to "no sexual orientation", "neutral sexual orientation", or "undefined sexual orientation" which present this categorically as functionally equivalent to other identified orientations such as homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or any of the other myriad GLBT flavors on that Baskin-Robbins chart. There are definitely references (and plenty of books, journals, mentions, etc) about "asexual" people, and about people whose sexual orientations are somehow ambiguous or unidentified… but that doesn't mean we can invent a new category here. To do so would be Original Research. Perhaps some experts in sexology with access to textbooks and academic libraries could illuminate the topic further for us; but until i see evidence that "unlabeled" or "neutral" or "undefined" are actual sexual orientations, i refuse to give them the same weight in our lists. Thanks ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 06:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, i recommend people do a quick search on google scholar. IT will turn up many articles containing studies that involve people with unlabeled sexual orientations. --cooljuno411 07:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Not everyone identifies by sexual orientation, and this would add extra diversity to the sexual orientation series of articles. It could use more academic sources, but should be given time to grow. If pomo- is too redundant with this article to have both, it would be better to have this one since it is inclusive enough to cover more identities/concepts which do not fit into the sexual orientation labels. (Not that I am voting to merge pomo, since that would be out of the scope of this AfD). Article creator's previous articles should not be reason to pre-judge this article. Wikignome0529 (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking former comments, I would expect some of the childish comments/behavior on here from article creator (based on previous incidents, though people can & do change so I did not pre-judge him or his article based on that), but some of the rest of the regulars here (including nom) should know better. I do not care whether this article stays or dies via stabbing with a bloody spork. Happy editing, all. :-) (no response to this message necessary) Wikignome0529 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote from the American Phycological Association: ""Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all."" - quote from the American Phycological Association--cooljuno411 07:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So where are all of these people discussed as a category? And what name is given to that category? Please cite sources. At least one of the sources currently cited has been found (by Teledildonix314, above) to have no discussion of this purported category at all. A second source, that you've also cited here, does not appear to discuss this category, but merely mentions, in 4 words, the absence of categorization. Three more sources are quotes from people refusing to be publicly categorized, and again do not discuss this category. Where are your sources discussing this? Uncle G (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I took the nominator's Google challenge. (See my comment above for links.) Google Scholar has never heard of the term. Neither have Google Books or Google News. When you add in Teledidonix's and Uncle G's showing that the sources for the article do not use the term either it is clear that this article is original research. Edward321 (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge to Pomosexual. Not using a label for something does not make it a distinct category suitable for an encylopedia. Popmosexual already covers the sexuality of people that prefer not to be boxed into a category, having a seperate unlabeled article is to the detriment of interested readers. Should we also have a "None of your business orientation" article, but that is a common reply to the question? Or a "Why does it matter orientation" article? The fact that a few people respond to questions aboutsexuality by refusing to label themselves does not make that their orientation, it means that whatewver their sexual preference, they don't want to be labelled.YobMod 13:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article by this creator has been deleted before [197], though the creator changed the article name during that AfD discussion. Edward321 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as an outside observer this looks like a discussion as to whether The Artist Formerly Known as Prince should be a separate article from Prince (musician). -Drawn Some (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Pomosexual and possibly Absexual, Pansexuality or others not listed in the Sexual orientation info box, into a new page with a more general name. Perhaps something like "Less commonly discussed sexual identities"? Cnilep (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Oppose Merge. I don't agree that this term is synonymous with Pomosexual (and, even if it is, this article should be the merge target, not the neologism) - this isn't, IMO, a simple content fork. The differences between the terms are explained in the articles, and I consider this to be a valid difference. The issue, as I see it, is whether or not we have adequate sourcing for this term in itself, rather than sourcing for the general statement "Many people choose not to identify with a particular orientation". This aspect of the article could be improved, so I'm neutral on whether it should be kept. However, if it's deleted, it should be _deleted_, not redirected to an article on a different subject. Tevildo (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge pomosexual into here,as the more general term. Any postulated difference can be discussed in the article DGG (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I know as the nom it's a given.. but I'll say that, as has been pointed out, this article was previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthrosexual in which during that Afd, Anthrosexual was moved to Undefined sexuality. Same creator of each article. We don't circumvent Afd by renaming articles. Had I known about the Anthrosexual/Undefined sexuality Afd, I would have prodded this article as recreation of deleted material. Without better academia and worldly distinction between the two, this can only be seen as original research. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Juno, a previous deletion is very relevant. If a deleted article is created such that it is substantially the same, it can be speedily deleted as per WP:CSD#G4. However, this article is different enough that I don't think it applies in this case. LadyofShalott 03:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:"History lesson" by Cooljuno411 that was here, has been moved to this Afd's talk page.
  • STRONG SUPPORT KEEPING ARTICLE: cooljuno's argument is the one that is valid. All agruments halted for the deletion of the article are simply showing the ignorance of the person writing that statement. Having an unlabeled sexual orientation is in practice, people do it. So why are we having a big deal???--03:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StealthyVlad (talk • contribs)
Yep, my friend.... yep..... (if your trying to prove a point, i don't get it. Not a crime to have a friends who use wikipedia..... have many friends who use myspace too. : ])--cooljuno411 03:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a "hasn't edited in 4 months but shows up to !vote in this Afd" friend. Those are the best kinds to have! ;] - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 04:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember now, consensus is not a vote - Wikipedia:What is consensus#Not a majority vote : ]--cooljuno411 05:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was willing to listen to any and all arguments based on things like Reliable Sources, but i haven't seen any yet. I was willing to completely ignore the ageism and claims of narrow-mindedness in your arguments, because i'm not bothered by your opinions of me personally. But when you blatantly play games with sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry, that's when i have to say "no more". Lack of integrity is not only irritating, it's an insult to the people who are trying to be collaborative with you. If you have comments to make, arguments to present, and ideas to discuss, you can do so without resorting to socks/meats/ and other lowbrow tactics. Nobody here is disregarding your opinions or your suggestions because of who you are as a person, we have only been trying to have a discussion based upon the simple principles of Verifiable data from Reliable Sources. Have some integrity and desist from the childishness. "Simply showing the ignorance" is the sort of argument i can ignore at first— but when it's followed by sockpuppetry or meatcanvassing, i'm going to draw the line in the sand. In case it weren't flaminingly obvious to you already, this situation has already been reported to Administrator Noticeboards/ Incidents and to CheckUser requests. Why don't you take a moment to think about how to collaborate in a friendly fashion with people who have been listening to you patiently, instead of insulting them in multiple ways. For goodness' sake, you've got a gaggle of LGBT editors here who are trying to accomodate all possible viewpoints and trying to be sensitive to all possible ideas, and you're practically spitting in our faces with your insults about our "ignorance", or "mindset from a different century", and your SSP abuse. Please stop. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 05:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As i said before, no issue with having a fellow friend who uses wikipedia. So you claim all sorts puppets and toys as you wish. I am not in the wrong for knowing a person who uses wikipedia.--cooljuno411 05:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you missed the "!" in front of "vote". I'm well aware of this, thanks. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 05:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pomosexual is a neologism and our article starts out by declaring this. The word was quite unfamiliar to me and, per WP:NEO, we should not use such words as they will baffle our readership. This article has a better title for the ordinary reader which is consistent with the advice of WP:NEO: "use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English". Pomosexual should be merged into it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any Reliable Sources which we could use to justify this? I've gone through the current sources in the article, and they actually dissuade me from my usual tendency to be as inclusive and flexible as possible. For example:
  • In the source from Planned Parenthood and the American Psychological Association, we find them giving no mention of this as a category, we only find the term "unlabeled" at the end of a list of "descriptions of how some women label themselves", and a mention that in addition to "gay", "lesbian" and "bisexual", "some people may use different labels or none at all". So that's not evidence of a category, it's merely lack of data.
  • When i look at the Dewey Decimal discussion about categorizing literature on transgendered people i did a search for the keyword "neutral", and i found absolutely no evidence of such theoretical "neutral" or "undeclared" or "undefined" categorization; on the contrary, i found the opposite— they actually pose the question 'Is there any need for provisions for “asexuality and asexuals,” “people with no sexual orientation,” or “neutral sexual orientation”?' and the document indicates this is an unanswered query.
  • Finally, when i look at the source material from the Society for Research on Adolescence, i did a keyword search on "neutral", "undeclared", "undefined", and grammatical spelling variations thereof. Results: zero, zip, zilch, nada. So i did a keyword search for "orientation", and all i found were discussions about adolescents who were in sexual-minorities who had issues with disclosure to their peers, family, etc; but those discussions clearly described the sexual-minorities in common terms such as "homosexual", "bisexual", etc.
As a person who would love to see the world less rigidly defined, particularly in terms of sexual orientation and all sorts of interpersonal relationships (sexual, physical, abstract, or otherwise), i will defend the inclusion of this article if we could find anything whatsoever in terms of a Reliable Source which gives us a reason to do so. Unfortunately, despite my philosophical sympathies toward the mindset of the article's creator, my best efforts to verify any such sources have been absolutely fruitless. So i'm afraid that the basic pillars of WP:V and WP:RS must, as usual, trump my sympathies and philosophies. If you can show me a single iota of any reliable reference which would allow us to include this concept/article/topic in our encyclopedia and in our templates, then i will do a complete 180° turnaround and vow my support; until then, i must concur with the advice that we Delete This With Hellfire. Thank you ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 11:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I just spent a minute or two and am satisfied that there's a topic here. To start with there's the sources for the pomosexual article. And then there's scholarly papers like A critique of research on sexual-minority youths which indicate that there are many people who do not conform to or accept a "culturally defined sexual identity label". And whatever we are to make of this, deletion is not the appropriate editing tool - this is a matter of ordinary content editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the correct title for this article? Because so far, including the Abstract Summary in the link you just provided, i still haven't found a definitive answer. I'm not denying that we have phenomena which are beyond our usual definitions and linguistic norms; but can you even tell us reliably what the correct title should be for this article? My crystal balls have yet to indicate whether the terminology which will be used in the future is "Undeclared" or "Neutral", "Miscellaneous", or "i just don't want to give any of the usual answers, so leave my box Unchecked". It's not our standard practise to write articles about concepts which haven't even been given a generally-recognized descriptor. Instead, our standard practise is to take the information from the sources (such as the one you graciously gave) and weave their information into the other articles where such discussion is appropriate. Otherwise there would be no end to the infinite possibilities of frivolous article creation— just imagine how this would work in other areas, such as lists of painters, lists of musical bands, lists of dialect speakers, et cetera. Plenty of musicians claim their music isn't categorizable; plenty of painters refuse to accept categorical labels for their art; … so when we write articles about those bands and those artists, we don't invent an "undeclared visual art style" category in their templates, we don't invent an "unlabeled musical genre" for their placement in our encyclopedic hierarchies. If you can at least show me some sources which actually tell us what to consistently name this topic, then i'll agree that it fits under our most Universal Umbrella. I'm completely sympathetic to the concept, but if you can't show us the secondary sources then i must treat it as Original Research. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 12:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so if the current title is "Unlabeled sexual orientation", then why can't we find a body of information on this topic by searching the internet for this title? Even if you disregard my question about title, where are your secondary sources? Which books, journals, or other media are publishing information about "Unlabeled sexual orientation"? Please and thank you for taking the time to answer my questions when they are about something linguistically tricky, i do appreciate that you're looking for the most openminded way to include this article intelligently. All we need are some Reliable Sources, and i'll have no further questions, i'll accept your suggestion of inclusion if we can just verify that the topic is noted in some reputable way. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 13:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already provided two sources. If you try your search like this you'll find more. I also note that the word fluid or fluidity occurs repeatedly in this context. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then write an article about fluid sexual orientation if you have found external secondary sources which have already done the Original Research! Your search results only emphasize my point further. You know how the American Census takers have the option to check the "Undeclared" box on their questionnaires about "Religious Preference"? We don't have an article about "Undeclared Religious Preference", instead we mention Undeclared Religious Preference in the appropriate places in the more general topics about Religion. You know how some musicians insist their music cannot be labelled as belonging to a certain genre? We don't have an article about "Undeclared Musical Genre", instead we mention the musicians' uncategorizable work in the appropriate places. You know how some people simply prefer to use the "Q" in "LGBTQ" rather than decide on an official descriptor for their feelings about sexuality and gender? People have written books and done scholarly research about the "Questioning" in "Questioning (sexuality and gender)" so we have an article about "Questioning (sexuality and gender)" because we can Verify the Reliable secondary Sources! Until you provide us with some secondary sources about "Fluid" or "Undeclared sexual orientation" which have given us something to summarize about the topic, we can't invent an article about it because that would be Original Research.
Personally, i think the quote from Winston Churchill on your UserPage is fabulous, because i do not wish to destroy the hard work of other Wikipedians. I want their valuable contributions to be included, and i want the inclusion to be done in the most useful and intelligent ways possible. If you examine my own Contribution History, you will find that this is the first time i have ever suggested deleting an article in my three years here. I'm even going to volunteer to "do the heavy lifting" of taking the information in this article and weaving it into the more appropriate contexts of other more general articles! Seriously, i am not denying the existence of "fluid" or "undeclared" or "neutral" sexual orientation— but until you give me some secondary sources which have done the original research about the topic, i refuse to accept the validity of a standalone article. The correct way to preserve the information and ensure that valuable facts are not destroyed is by relocating it to the more appropriate venues. I will offer to do all the relocation, but i will not do Original Research, and i will not include any other Wikipedians' original research; i will only work with material which is verified from reputable sources who have already published something of substance. Can you see how this would be more useful to our readers? We can't even justify a stub here; all we have are miscellanea which theoretically potentially deserve to be edited into the more appropriate more general areas. Wikipedia is a big enough Universal Umbrella to cover the information which is worth including, but our job is to include it correctly, not to invent a separate article for every possible nuance of every possible subsection of discussion. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 15:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in the spirit of "writing for the enemy", i am giving an additional link which mirrors the Google Book Search you just mentioned above on an American server which is more accessible for some of us (your British link doesn't work for me, but i'm taking the time to seriously examine all of your ideas.) Please look carefully at the passage on that page:
  • 'We do not yet have the language to encompass the different identities that are arising. The identifications of fluid and queer are becoming more prevalent. Queer is an umbrella term that refers to an individual who has any sexual orientation, identity, or attraction that is not heterosexual. [...] Fluid refers to the fact that for some TNG youth sexual orientation, identity, and attractions may change and frequently depend on the mood, setting, and people in the individual's life. An individual who perceives their sexual orientation, gender expression, or sexual identity as fluid recognizes that their attractions may change in response to a host of variables and are at least somewhat comfortable with their recognition that these things change. [...] Paula Rust discusses the apparent permeability of the categories of sexual orientation constructed by social scientists.'
So you've made a convincing argument that we should discuss Fluid, Queer, Neutral, Undeclared, and other such possibilities in the more appropriate general articles about sexuality, orientation, and relationships. The only reason to give this its own standalone article would be if you could show us some Verifiable material which has already done the Original Research. Until then, this information can only be included in the more generalized more appropriate Wikipedia articles. I'm not denying the existence of the concept, i'm not asking you to destroy the work of editors like Cooljuno411, i'm asking you to please help us include the data in the proper places. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 15:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


(OUTdent) Please look at the consensus for how we handle content forking. Then please look at the opening paragraph of Sexual orientation. Then please look at the stub for Questioning (sexuality and gender). Now, i understand "The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article." Also i'm an extremely egalitarian person in the arena of ideas, particularly as a lifelong crusader against bigotry and unnecessary labeling or judgmentalism. My friends, i've been singing Don't fence me in since before today's GLBTQ adolescents even knew what the "Q" stands for! I've learned every verse about sexual orientation, gender, cultural nonconformity, minority viewpoints, and ethical inclusiveness since before i even identified as anti-heteronormative. I've even offered to play Devil's advocate by WP:Writing for the enemy and presenting all sides with due weight: i went so far as to make your evidence more accessible[198] to everybody here.

I've told you that if this article is deleted to smithereens, i would even preserve the shrapnel in every intelligent way. I'm giving you the wikilinks to Questioning, Queer, GLBTQ, Sexual orientation, Bi-curious, Pomosexuality(References)[199], Sexual identity, Gender identity, and Template:Gender_and_sexual_identities[200] where you can examine their "see also" topics and other subcategorization options. I am a more generous inclusionist than 99% of the Wikipedians you will meet today. And i'm pointing out to you that this is the first time i have ever voiced an opinion for article deletion in my three years of experience as a Wikipedian. How can i possibly show you (and the article's disgraced creator![201]) more generosity for handling Article Spinouts?

Unless you show me some material from the details of the hypothetical research by Paula Rust, or a credible verifiable author who gives us some way to summarize a new stub spinout, what we have proven is a WP:POV fork rather than a Keep !vote for the sub-sub-topic which is being conceptualized. The original POV_fork Author of this article didn't even know what the correct title should be[202], and you haven't given us a way to verify inclusion nor merging— because we've demonstrated unanswered questions rather than secondary sources which give us enough information about a certain aspect of a subject that justifies a separate article. We've already identified that this article's creation is a work of Original Research on the part of its creator[203], and he hasn't even dug up enough material from his own research presented there[204] to elaborate any further than the seven sentences which redundantly parrot the information we find in all of the other articles which i've already wikilinked for you[205].

Part of being an Inclusionist Wikipedian[206] involves learning how to create useful content forks instead of POV forks, and part of being an Inclusionist involves knowing how to merge, sort, summarize, and detail the valuable information in all of the available places which are appropriate. In case you hadn't noticed already, i'm the sort of editor who's always supporting inclusionism in every appropriate philosophy, whether for personal goals of egalitarianism and secular justice, or for WP:Neutral goals of Due Weight to objective analysis. (Why use a hundred words, when a thousand will do?!) I'm a Builder of Systems, not a Destroyer of Information. And even i can understand how this situation is easily resolved by following our guidelines of including all minority viewpoints!

In some future time when External Researchers have given us adequate secondary (or even tertiary) reliable sources, i will be all over your bandwagon to sing the Spinout song along with you! Until then, please hum along with me: "POV forks are not allowed; let's preserve the interesting bits of whose essence we are proud!"

Please forgive my loquaciousness, i just feel like we should always be sensitive to all sides of GLBTQ issues, even when the song of Q is being sung by sockpuppets or meatcanvassees. I'm very disgusted with the juvenile approach[207] which was taken by the POV_fork Article's creator in his arguments here against deletion, but i'm still willing to champion his alternative perspectives for the sake of not pigeonholing anything unnecessarily. I'm even sufficiently iconoclastic to argue against cherished principles of Wikipedia policy and style guidelines. But you have to give us reasons, evidence, sources, something to support more forks— and until you do, you'll have to please kindly accept our offer to hold our Universal Umbrella over your stubs without creating frivolous articles. Do you know which road is paved by good intentions? It's marked on my map as "Infinite Inclusionism", but i'd rather take the shortcut down "Detail Our Existing Lane"!! Thank you, Q~friendly editors, ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 19:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not content forking.... haven't we established that a person who identifies as pomosexual is different from a person who does not label their sexual orientation???????--cooljuno411 20:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That really is what we're here to do. Sexuality (as we can see from the above) is always a highly-charged issue, and we should try to focus on the purpose of this AfD: (a) Do we have verifiable, reliable sources that establish "Unlabeled sexual orientation" as a legitimate subject for an article? (b) Is "Unlabeled sexual orientation" sufficiently similar to "Pomosexual" to merit a merge? Discussions on sexual identity in general aren't appropriate for this particular stage of the process. Tevildo (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(@Cooljuno411) AllStarEcho answered you already[208]. I'll repeat in a different way, so maybe you'll see it more clearly: content forking is excellent, we just need some material from you which is a summary of External Sources of research, not your Original Research and opinions. Your POV_fork is about a concept which does exist, but you and your socks/meatpuppets haven't justified a separate article, you've barely even given us a seven sentence restatement of the information we've already elaborated in a dozen other more appropriate places. It doesn't matter whether or not i believe "that a person who identifies as pomosexual is different from a person who does not label their sexual orientation"… what matters is you haven't given us anything except your research, and that's not what we put in the encyclopedia. Instead, we use your research to decide how to sort and include and elaborate on all the Original Research which has already been found in our Secondary Sources. If this topic is so crucial to you, then it's your job to put some flesh on the bones, not to redundantly show us x-rays of the skeletons which we already see behind all of those dozen other more appropriately edited topics. Personally i am neither pomosexual nor neutral~orientation nor a "Q" person of "undeclared sexual orientation", but i would spend all weekend doing your job for you if you would just give me some materials from secondary sources to work with! I have thrice offered to "write for the enemy" even though i don't have a personal vested interest in advancing your viewpoint. I've given you every possible pertinent link to help steer you along the pathway of data retention, because i know that Wikipedia is not paper and i am happy to hold the Universal Umbrella over your dangly dingdong stubs if you would just give me something to stuff in your stub! If your next contentious point is not somehow evidence of secondary sources instead of personal opinion, i am officially going to fling the Umbrella aside and cease giving you any more credence. You've taken the time to "LOLZ" on the SSP Investigation instead of just politely answering my requests for elaboration, and your supposed meatpuppets have been singing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in response to multiple administrator requests for explanation of your behavior. I only give respect to rulebreakers who demonstrate a need for the rules to be broken, i don't suffer gladly your insulting ageist sockpuppeteering bratty personal attacks.

Think very very carefully, Cooljuno411, before you make any further posts to this thread, or to any related forum, discussion, investigation, or talkpages. If you want the Wikipedia community (and especially the LGBTQ/ undeclared/ neutral/ undefined/ queer~friendly editors in that community) to respect your next remark, i hope you will think about how to swallow your pride or shame and admit that there is a better approach to article-building which does not involve meatpuppets or sockpuppets. If you want every last Wikipedian to see the flaming tracers of your swan song as a postmodern approach to "How to spit in the face of people who volunteer hours of their time to help you", then by all means, go ahead and light those final fireworks with an additional disrepectful emanation of sparking spittle. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do tell what you idea is.... With out drowning it in paragraphs and words.... it tends to devoid people from reading it.... and i know it's not just me... : ]--cooljuno411 23:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was the first person to create the TalkPage for this AfD Discussion so you could go there and present Reliable secondary Sources in order to Verify the justification for a content fork, despite the fact that i could have PRODded for speedy deletion as this was just a recreation of the same dispute over pomosexual/ anthrosexual/ refusal to define or declare orientation. You have yet to contribute successfully with basic pillars of WP:V along WP:GNG using WP:RS to help your case, and your SockMeatMouth told me my dotage makes me simply too ignorant to understand your contributions. You can reverse the situation, and you can explain your actions at the appropriate Noticeboards for CheckUser Investigation. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 00:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will further continue to say NOT A CONTENT FORK. Pomosexual and an unlabeled sexual orientation are completely different. And i don't know why you have a habit of bringing up anthrosexual..... it is another orientation that is completely beside the point... If you need a distinguishment of the differences, try here : ] --cooljuno411 00:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KABLAMMO! KABLOOIE! Speaking of sparkling sparking spittle. I should have shouted at you to "get off the lawn!" because if you don't want to park in the designated parking area, you are free to pull over somewhere else off the road, instead of spinning your tires on the grass. That was actually your second edit in response to me after i made a last-ditch effort to offer you credence. I'm afraid the Universal Umbrella is now officially chucked, and you can thank yourself as i will no longer volunteer to do your writing for you. You could have used me as a wikipedia editing resource/tool because i'm able to practise inclusion of minority viewpoints even when i don't give a hoot about the difference between your non-neutral POV and our basic Pillars; instead you squandered every last opportunity to avail yourself of my offers with your usual flippant frivolous backhand snarks. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 01:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep At the end neologism , it says that if there's a noteable topic for which no well established term exists, we should use a plain english phrase. So I dont think that phenomena for where there's no established term need to off bounds. I had this confirmned a few weeks back by the folks on the no original reasearch notice board. Granted it seems to be hard to find good sources, but the ones already present seem to confirm the noteability of the phenomena. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very true. : ] HAve been saying many of times, "NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH", but a select few keep scream that it is.... : ]--cooljuno411 23:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. As has been proven above, none of the sources speak of this term, either academically or as a neologism. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 00:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So when the APA says some people may use other labels or NONE AT ALL to discuss there sexual orientations.... there not talking about not labeling your sexual orientation..... hmmm.... then please do tell what they are talking about.... cause i'll be sure to start that article....--cooljuno411 01:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism, original research, etc. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
What is the difference between anthrosexual and pansexual? I agree that anthrosexual is different from having an unlabeled sexuality. Mish (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of this discussion. If somebody does not label label their sexuality, then that would be commented on under sexual orientation or sexual identity, but if an article is created called 'unlabeled sexual orientation', then it is effectively creating a labeled sexuality called 'unlabeled sexuality'. I do not identify (or label myself) as any particular gender (beyond legal necessities), that does not mean I have an unlabeled gender, I have no gender. Referring to an 'unlabeled sexuality' is simply referring to something that is not there - the lack of a clear sexual identity label. Sure, people have refused to label their sexuality, some would find it difficult to give their sexuality a label, but to get from people saying they don't label their sexuality, or even DSM commenting on this, to there being a consistent understanding of this as a clear category 'unlabeled sexuality' is a leap. You probably find the majority of heterosexuals don't label their sexuality, because they don't need to. Mish (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your whole theory of discussing it gives it a label would be a nice debate you can entertain between friends. But fact is, this is an informational encyclopedia, so regardless of your brain teaser, it is the job of an encyclopedia to document actual facts. And i would have to say your theory of heterosexual people not truly labeling themselves to be false. How can they be "heterosexual", but then not label themselves..... rather oxymoronic.--cooljuno411 06:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell from the hint of abuse in your response that you know I have a valid point. People don't tend to identify as straight, because that is seen as 'normal'. Why label the unlabeled here, when it is unlabeled elsewhere? Mish (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not label as straight??? Lolz.... in a society like ours, where your a "fag" if your not straight, they generally drop the "i'm straight" phrase all the time. Ask a "straight" guy who looks better, Bill Gates or Brad Bitt, they'll say "I don't know, i'm straight (as though it's a bar to see truths)". So I'm sorry, but i would have to severely disagree with you.--cooljuno411 15:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brad Pitt. Mish (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a complete thought? I have no idea what is intended to be conveyed with that name. LadyofShalott 20:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a response to "who looks better, Bill Gates or Brad Bitt", i believe. To me, it makes more sense than anything i'm getting from the "Lolz.... your a fag" missives. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 20:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thanks. Sorry I missed that. LadyofShalott 20:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - essentially synthesis/original research; the list of real people raises WP:BLP issues. Robofish (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the references already in the article demonstrate enough notability for the concept. LadyofShalott 21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The sources that say nothing about the concept, too? An interview with Lidnsey Lohan where she says she doesn't want to classify herself hardly speaks to the concept.. especially coming from her. Her, and others such as Pink say these kinds of things for publicity. Frankly, there's just no sources that say "this and this is called or known as or is referred to in Academia or science as Unlabeled sexual orientation". The sources just do not support anything implied in this 100% totally original research "article". Even in the ref formatting, Cooljuno has tried to make the refs say things they don't really say. For example: Look at ref 4. A quote from an American Psychological Association, What is sexual orientation? - "sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual, gay/lesbian, and bisexual"..... However, some people may use different labels or none at all." - "none at all" referring to an unlabeled sexual orientation. The bolded section, emphasis mine. We don't use refs to try and infer meaning from a source. The source either says it as fact, or it's not an acceptable source. Yet here, Cooljuno adds his own interpretation of the source by adding "none at all" referring to an unlabeled sexual orientation to the reference footnote. Unacceptable in any encyclopedia, much less Wikipedia. Original research, the whole thing. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cooljuno, nastiness is not necessary. I urge you to strike that comment. LadyofShalott
And why did you reply.... ?? --cooljuno411 21:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to LadyofShalott.. not to you kid. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 22:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ASE, I think we should remove the portion of the sentence you quoted that says, "'none at all' referring to an unlabeled sexual orientation". However, it is referring to the concept, even if it does not phrase it that way. The Planned Parenthood reference clearly lists "unlabeled" among its entries, and the UK government survey discusses people choosing not to use a label. So, yes, in my mind, this establishes enough notability for the concept. I realize you don't agree with me. :) LadyofShalott 21:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec)Additionally, I removed the study added to the "article" by FeydHuxtable. It simply does not say what that content said the study says. For example:
A 2006 UK study carried out by the Office for National Statistics, a branch of the British Civil Service, found that between 1.5% and 4.6% preferred not to identify their sexual orientation, depending on how the question was framed. This speaks nothing about "Unlabeled sexual orientation". The study says people chose not to identify their orientation for the study. That most definitely does not mean they don't have their own personal label for it. It just means they didn't want to identify it.
while 33% said they preferred not to give a reason for choosing to be unlabelled. This is a huge stretch. 33% said they preferred not to give a reason. If we don't have a reason, how do we know it was because they didn't want to be labeled?
Again, a case of trying to make a study infer something it doesn't. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through the paper, I am striking the portion of my comments about the UK study. I have already reverted myself on ASE's deletion of that from the article. LadyofShalott 21:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Think this would be more satisfying for everyone in this discussion. I care more about the theory itself, then a title. So don't feel as though i am stubborn.
 : ] --cooljuno411 22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I have already change the name of the subsection "Notable people with unlabeled sexual orientations" to "Notable people who do not label their sexual orientation" it is more correct that way. But it does show more of an example of what i am talking about. : ]--cooljuno411 22:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) No, I don't think it would be more satisfying for much of anyone. It does not follow our typical naming conventions. LadyofShalott 22:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do reference a policy that says that.... i have seen some rather long names out there. : ] But please do feel free to help come up with a better title. Because i think echoallstar seems to have more of a problem with the name, more than the actual theory, that's what i am interpreting it to be. Well i would at-least hope it is not the concept, because that would be rather discriminative.--cooljuno411 22:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As requested: Wikipedia:Naming conventions. LadyofShalott 00:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The specific policy that would bar this name?--cooljuno411 03:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No Original Research covers this, regardless of nomenclature. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 03:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That and/or Wikipedia:Synthesis. How about incorporating this under pomosexual, and set up a redirect for 'Unlabeled sexual orientation' in case somebody one day happens to type in as a search? Mish (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allstar, I agree that folk who prefer not to identify their sexuality will very often know what their sexuality is , but then a label is an external badge, not wanting one doesnt necessarily mean you dont think any of the existing labels fit you. I also agree the study doesnt argue that there's some new kind of sexuality called "unlabelled sexuality" or similar, but I dont think thats what Juno's article is saying. His article defines unlabelled sexuality as "those who do not label themselves with a sexual orientation" - thinking that the current choices are unsuitable is one reason for choosing not accept a label, but only one of many.
Juno, here's the link to the study , which has now been removed from the article, the specific study on reasons for not choosing a label is on p12. Would Non disclosure of sexual identity be a fair alternative title for your article? I still think it would be best for this topic to have its own article if possible. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are getting at. In the UK there is a call to have the next census to have an option not to specify a sex/gender. Some people think this means a third sex/gender option, but it is simply an option not to specify a sex/gender. I would not call that 'unlabeled sex/gender', but unspecified sex/gender. I wonder if 'unspecified sexuality' might be something we could consider? There are moves to incorporate sexual orientation on some forms, and some will not want to identify themselves as having a specific sexuality, or may feel the options do not cover them. 'Unspecified sexuality' would accommodate those who do not wish to disclose, specify or label their sexuality maybe? I am still concerned that this is all so new it does verge on the novel in a way that draws together separate things - but as has happened with gender issues and androgyny, it something that needs a location. I guess pomosexual is a positive identitification, unlike an unwillingness to identify or be identified. Mish (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Unspecified sexuality' would work IMO. As per study some forms do already allow the "prefer not to say" option - I couldnt swear to it but I think I've seen one of them before ,certainly I've heard of the concept. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the pomosexual or the ‘post-modern sexual’ is "a person who shuns labels such as heterosexual and homosexual that define individuals by their sexual preferences." Mallik, Chetan (24 January 2004). "Now, say hello to the pomosexual!". The Times of India. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/442642.cms So, they are the same, except that one shuns labels to the extent that 'pomosexual' is rejected as well. What ever will those who shun 'unlabeled sexual orientation' do, I wonder? I am torn - I'd be happy for 'unspecified' relating to certain circumstances, and I can see why people who shun labels might feel offended by others imposing a label on them. People have the right to define themselves - but I'm still not sure 'unlabeled' has been (nor by definition can be) established as a verifiable categorisation in the way it would be required to be for an article in its own right. It needs evidence of a taxonomy of sexual orientation which lists this as a distinct nomenclature, not a description of people not labeling their sexuality. I doubt you will find it, because the term used in such taxonomies will be 'pomosexual' - and (I agree with Elvey) if there is a controversy there needs to be some reference to verify that. Maybe this is just an idea whose time has not yet come? Mish (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now. We do have articles on neologisms but it's because we have plenty of sources to denote notability that they are more mainstream. This fails the duck test of original research, at least from a reader standpoint, although in fairness I think it's bordeline. I'm familiar with both nom and primary author and believe they each have good intentions. The issue remains with article quality despite a rather pointy nom. Looking past all of it it really seems like a borderline keep with a stay of execution at best. 3-6 months later we'd see that, no, the article hasn't budged much and we'd be back here. Having stated that, pomosexual was bolstered by a single book by prominent sexologist. So this term too could spring forth rather quickly into mainstream usage. I suggest redirect for now in hopes more sourcing is evidenced. -- Banjeboi 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • HUH? (Keep) This is such a messed up AfD, it's nearly impossible to make sense of it. So, let me add to the confusion by including my observations after stating that I have never edited this article and am completely uninvolved. 1) I don't understand the POV claims about either article. Unlabeled sexual orientation seems to be a short, but better than a stub, class article. Pomosexual is an even shorter article, and seems to discuss essentially the same thing, except Pomosexuals apparently prefer to label themselves as "Pomosexuals" rather than being labeled as "unlabled". Fine. I don't give a hoot what someone calls themself, but the articles sounds pretty much the same in content. 2) Pomosexual is (according to the article) a neologism, and according to WP:NEO, it shouldn't really be its own article. Thus, since they two articles are essentially the same topic, delete the Pomosexual article (i.e., it should be the one undergoing AfD), keep this article, and include mention of the neologism in this article (or merge if there is enough relevant and sourced information already contributed). 3) This AfD should probably closed on procedural grounds because it's mostly arguments about points of view, borderline personal attacks, and disgruntled people who have argued this topic in the past. Serious discourse about the article's merits as an article are difficult to find. It's more of a rambling WP:RfC with lots of personal drama than a discussion about the merits of keeping or deleting an article based on the Five pillars. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 22:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DUH? I've never edited this article either, and had no views before coming here, although was met with sarcasm as soon as I questioned the point of this article. Maybe as there is so little to support either article's existence, they should both be deleted, and this would support people who do not want to label their sexual orientation, because we will not be party to labeling it by having an article to legitimise any reference to it. A footnote under Sexual Orientation would fit the bill better. Mish (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pomosexual, however meets both notability and reliable sourcing whereas this once remains borderline. Despite the poor form of some AfD comments we need to look to where sourcing leads and these are rather thin for a subject that should have little problem being sourced of notable enough. -- Banjeboi 03:53, 8 May 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. CSD A3, and also WP:SNOW, because there is no way this discussion was going to close as anything other than "Delete". Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanMappers

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

Wikipedia is not a manual. Ironholds (talk) 06:00, 1 May 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 Web design. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Website planning

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

Wikipedia is not a manual. Ironholds (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 05:59, 1 May 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 per the usual custom, arguments from new users have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasodhara

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

Non-notable magazine per WP:NOTE, can find no reliable sources per WP:RS online that it even exists, part of a walled garden with Manoj Pradhan and Jasodhara global media MuffledThud (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletion Objected : Does notability of a magazine depends on its mere web presence or a few references online or its service to a community as noted in more enduring and ubiquitous sources like old press-clippings, books, journals etc.
It is high time wikipedians get out of their make believe world of online sources and take a little trouble to browse through the wealth of information that hasn't made its way to the web instead of making such naive remarks and judgements.
Let there be an open debate on it and the authors asked to submit references in support of their articles from all sources.
Konark1983 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC). — Konark1983 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment There seem to be no references quoted outside the magazine itself, whether web or print. There seems to be no article in Oriya - or if there is, it's not linked to this English one. It's a little difficult to find references on the web for this name without wading through swathes of non-relevant ones, so perhaps the creator could do this for us. Or cite reliable outside sources in print at the least. Peridon (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Relevant reference has been added to the article.Brainmap (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)— Brainmap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Only ref provided is incorrect. No mention of ciruclation figures. --Deepak D'Souza 05:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What do u mean by incorrect. Go to the site of leading Oriya Newspaper 'Pragativadi' at www.pragativadi.com. Click its 'Archive' tab at the top of the page and browse news item of April 28, 2009. Do news items on any media outlet mentions its circulation figure.

How many wiki articles on 'magazines' have outside references other than a link to its own website and the guidelines of wiki itself states own sources are not be treated as references.

And I'm sure, our wikipedian friends would definitely come up with more references on a magazine that has been contributing to a state's culture for over two decades. (Brainmap (talk) 06:00, 8 May 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 Christianity in Singapore. Cirt (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Church in Singapore

edit
The Church in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined a CSD for this because of possible notability. In any case, the title is very ambiguous; are they talking about the Methodist church, Congregationalist church, one church, a group of churches, etc.? I tried Google-searching, but found it hard to match this article with one of the Google results. I'm neutral until we have an idea of what they're talking about. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it makes any claim to or that is obvious. Drawn Some (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe congregation associated with Witness Lee and the Living Stream Ministry's Local churches is another group by the name "Church of God". Not the same as CiS. Pneumatikos (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome (Spartan-092)

edit
Jerome (Spartan-092) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lack of notability. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:36, 1 May 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Mexican

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

Note: this is an article about immigrants from the South Asian country of India, not about the indigenous people of Mexico. Probable WP:HOAX, definitely fails WP:N. The article was created by CARLMART (talk · contribs), who was indefinitely blocked last year for adding huge amounts of false content to human migration articles. I can't confirm any of the content. The only significant connections between Indian emigrants and Mexico are:

  1. The well-documented phenomenon of Punjabi men in early 20th century California marrying Mexican women [209]—but there's no evidence that any significant number of them or their descendants actually went to Mexico.
  2. Manabendra Nath Roy in the Communist Party of Mexico—but one person decades ago does not make the entire community notable
  3. Newspaper article about Sikhs in Mexico [210]—most would appear to be non-Indian converts

Obviously a naive search for "Indians in Mexico" or "Indian Mexicans" will just give you a bunch of false positives about indigeneous peoples. I tried some other web searches in both English and Spanish (which you can see in the box below), but didn't find anything useful. The only source at all about them is a report from the Non Resident Indians & Persons of Indian Origin Division of India's Ministry of External Affairs which covers Indians in every country in the world; it does mention Indians in Mexico on page 239 for about three paragraphs [211]. This isn't a sufficient basis on which to write an article. Other sources you'd expect to find information in, like Lal's The Encyclopedia of the Indian Diaspora, don't make any significant mention of Mexico at all [212].

List of Google searches
  1. 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, 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, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. 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, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL: see comment above
  3. 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, 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: unreliable sources only
  4. 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, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  9. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  10. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL; not aware of an equivalent term in Spanish

Cheers, cab (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hmm, i've got some drifting thoughts about it now. In accordance with Cab, I was the first to point out the issues regarding original research about this article, and I appreciate his response. However, there are three sources which Cab has managed to find now. Since there were also three or four internet sources mentioning about Pakistanis in Tanzania, the page Pakistani Tanzanian was deleted anyway as I guess "three or four sources" is simply not enough. I can tell that this article faces the same kind of evolving scenario because the PDF file that we have is mostly talking about history of the Punjabis and that was way before in the 40's and 50's, not much about the current society. The page about Sikhs in Mexico on the other hand, mentions some 100 Indian families in Mexico ( I think), but again, the issue of lack of sources pop up. This article should be deleted and merged with Indian diaspora or Demographics of Mexico at the best. Teckgeek (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comment. What I argued on the other AfD—and what I argue here as well, is that the sources fail the "significant coverage" clause of Wikipedia:Notability. The article about Sikhs spends most of its time talking about the Mexican converts, and also about one individual Indian guy, but basically doesn't tell us any details about the Indians in Mexico as a group other than that "they exist" and "they're Sikhs". The Indian government report is a little better, but it's still rather short—and the middle paragraph focuses on investments by Indian companies, rather than actual Indian migrants. cab (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability. 207.233.67.8 (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Even if we assume that the article is factuall and the number (400) is correct and referenced, it is still too small a commumnity to be notable. Not to mention that they do not carry any influence in Mexico the way the Indian community in US or UK does. Besides there are migrants from India into practically every country on this planet (We had a station in Antarctica too!!!). That would mean approx 200 X-Indian community articles. And the biggest reason would be that it is probably a neologism. --Deepak D'Souza 13:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no claim of significance or importance and the stated population of 400 (out of 110,000,000 Mexicans) seems almost irrelevant. I would be surprised if the true number were that low, however. Drawn Some (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--the text itself gives me no reason to think this is a notable topic, and the lack of references confirms this. The nominator's pretty exhaustive work seems more than enough to support deletion. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 1 May 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 per nominator withdrawal. Non-admin closure. Gigs (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memory tester

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

Product placement. Article could be legit if cleaned up, but it's not legit in this current form Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was a pretty quick/good cleanup of that article. I got no problem with keeping it now. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:59, 1 May 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. Wizardman 16:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Mathematics Championship

edit
Washington State Mathematics Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school event on a local level. I'm sure each state has something like this, and it doesn't seem to have any notability. One Google hit for "washington state mathematics championship," 113 for "washington state math championship." either way (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To those arguing that similar competitions are mentioned in list articles: Notability doesn't apply to mentions in the contents of articles, such as lists. It does apply when deciding whether to have a separate article for something, and it's a higher standard than the standard for inclusion as a mention in the content of an article, which is only verifiability rather than both notability and verifiability that is required for a separate article. Gigs (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Blaine High School (Washington). The subject is not notable enough to warrant a standalone article. However, the competition seems to be very important in the context of the school. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your suggestion will not work, as Blaine High School nor the Blaine School District has an major affiliation with this contest, other than providing the space. This competition is also hosted by Conoco Phillips, but a merge into that article will also be futile. -download | sign! 19:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is NOT a ballot and the determination is according to guidelines, not number of "votes", this is not a vote. If the subject of the article satisfies guidelines for notability and verifiability, it stays, if not, it is deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication of any possible notability. subnational level competitions of his sort are not notable under most circumstances, unless there is very clear sourcing to indicate something particularly important. DGG (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Delete. No independent sources have been provided. There are no Google News hits and hardly any Google web hits. Hence, notability has not been established. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general notability guideline states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I'd be glad to userfy this article until I or someone else is capable of finding the sources. However, there is no question whether this contest is notable. This is not one of the many local competitions in Washington nor a mere school event. -download | sign! 03:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I'm seeing a lot of logical fallacies regarding votes to keep, but no verifiable evidence of notability. It's easy to say "If article X is still on Wikipedia, than this should be too." But that isn't how this works. Not every article is the same, and as someone else has made mention of, there is a difference between not being cited properly, and not being notable. In the case of the former, verifiability can easily be established with some edits and proper citation. In the latter, it's not going to change if there's still no reliable 3rd party coverage to establish that it is notable in an encyclopedic format. No one here is disputing that this math competition is important to the participants, as that much is obvious. But importance to a select few are not what makes this relevant to anyone outside of the article's immediate scope. JogCon (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - fails Wikipedia:Notability because it is not notable enough in the context of a school event, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources because none of this article is sourced. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Involves enough people to be considered notable. JamesMLane t c 12:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many does it involve? That's not mentioned in the article. What is the minimum standard for number of people involved to be considered notable? either way (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This year's contest involved over 4000 mathletes total in high school and middle school levels, and these are top mathletes selected from each school district, so it should be considered notable. Notability is not quanitified; however, this meets the standards of having enough coverage. -download | sign! 19:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where are the third-party, reliable sources that prove this? Cunard (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is the problem I'm having. Because of today's popular culture, one can hardly find any sources regarding this topic, but can find sources on thousands of bands with hardly any skill at all. Are these bands really that much more notable than this math competition? Back to the point: I am working to find third party sources, so if this ends up getting deleted I'll userfy the article. -download | sign! 23:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "this meets the standards of having enough coverage" You say this over and over, yet, there is no coverage shown anywhere. The only two references prove existence, not notability. Having the name of the event on the list of about 50 state competitions for mathematics does not count as "coverage." either way (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The sources mentioned are passing mentions. The championship is listed in several directories - this does not confirm any notability. Remember, existence does not prove notability. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as there are no reliable sources that document this event in detail. None of the "Keep" !votes above have really addressed this point to my satisfaction. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Regretful Delete The problem is not notability. The problem is verifiability. If we can verify the claims regarding attendance and the like, I'd support keeping in a heartbeat. My problem is that searching Google and Gnews have failed to produce sources that can verify. I support userfication upon deletion and no prejudice against recreation should such sources materialize. RayTalk 03:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability and reliable sources. Reywas92Talk 21:03, 5 May 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 15:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(AN)drew Madinc. (visual painter)

edit
(AN)drew Madinc. (visual painter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD, no explanation given for removal. Promotional tone, sources not enough to establish notability. GlassCobra 03:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have tried to establish "notability" and already once this "notability" was cleared. I have checked other articles of other people and it seems that I have established more links and references than on a majority of small articles. I think this article is important and there is more importance than I alone can write for him.--Theother1986 (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No assertion of notability. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also if it has a promotional tone it is due to me trying to give the ref's. that I was required to give. If it sounds "promotional" can I be given a reason or example so I can change it?--Theother1986 (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite Theother's best efforts, I fail to see that the links given establish notability. Passing mentions in what amount to event programs don't really do the trick. Get some coverage from respected art critics and you might have something. Gigs (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your input concerning (AN)drew madinc. "gigs" however, if we are going to judge the Notability from "respected critics" than Led Zeppelin (example) would not be whom they are today (not that I am comparing him to them...by any means). On his website it also states that he was "banned from Ebay for life" for a work of art he did, I feel that is shows Notability. Also on his website there are reviews of artist and performers that are known here: [[215]]. Who is to pay attention to critics when these critics are just as crooked as politicians? I think the simple fact that he has been involved in shows and have had fellow artist and performers write about him...shows in it self. Thank you --Theother1986 (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Setting aside the somewhat redundant "visual painter" moniker, esp. the "visual" part, there seems to be no notability here. The sources are Wikipedia articles (which are NOT acceptable sources) and blogs/usersubmitted material. A Google News search reveals this, which is nothing. By contrast, even though this comparison makes no sense in the first place given Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, the same search for Zep gives this. That the guy is banned from Ebay is no matter--and if that is to be referenced from his own website, like all the famous people mentioned on that site, well, that site is hardly a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You also search for Revo industries you will find this [[216]] Just keep scrolling and and on many pages there are ref's for his art company and he CREATED Revo Industries..aka (R)EVO industries (for which he is also known as), So either a page is created for him...or REVO industries? REvo Industries has a lot more google searches?--Theother1986 (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe you can establish a solid amount of reliable secondary sources for his company, then I invite you to create such an article for the company. Please review the guidelines at WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N before you start though. They are very important if you want to create an article that won't be quickly deleted. Gigs (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In response to comments above, please note that even if major music critics reviewed Led Zeppelin negatively during their early years, at least they did notice Led Zeppelin and did review the band, which would have helped establish the band as notable if Wikipedia had existed back then. Similarly, if major art critics have taken notice of Madinc, even to give him negative reviews, that would help somewhat in establishing his notability. Regarding the ban from eBay, I cannot even find that claim on his web site, and even then we would need an independent source to verify that he really was banned and why. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It states here that he was banned form ebay on his website: [[217]] I have tried to email him concerning this (the ban from ebay)...however I am not surprised he has not responded as he probably would think him having this article is a waste of time...but I am assuming. I can not figure out why this article is such a problem? However I am a fan and that should explain it. I still think this article is important and I want to keep it open if possible.--Theother1986 (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Wow, so I got an email concerning this from him I hope it helps. He said I could "use it"


Dear Theother1986:

This is in regards to your email concerning this article for Wikipedia for (AN)drew Madinc. (Visual Painter).

As much as I appreciate your enthusiasm, I have to say I agree with why an article such as this should not exist. To be honest I am not famous, nor would I want to be. Bandwidth can be expensive and space is needed for people whom have contributed a little more than someone like me. As much as I would think it would be brilliant as any artist, it would not make sense just yet. I thank you for your enthusiasm and good luck on finding references and sources. I have gone out of the way to make sure they are not there, er yes.

Yes I was banned from Ebay and in the several emails concerning this it stated I was "abusing Ebay" and "promoting hatred" with the work "godmad,gonemad". You are welcome to use this email any any shape you require, however I do not think it will work. Might I suggest you working on an article from a much more commercial artist and that may satisfy them.

Ps I do not like being referred to as a "visual painter" its a bit pretentious.

(an)drew madinc. of (R)EVO industries revoindustries at ***** dot com

Does this help???????--Theother1986 (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I have already shown input from his peers, and not only that but He has to be on of the first "live painters on stage" that I am aware of. His first show was over 10 years ago. I will keep fighting for this, and if it gets erased I will be back because he has shows in the future and there will have to be "reviewers" for those. Thank you all for your input, I know this is not always easy--Theother1986 (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ps Here is footage with him painting just look for the only person painting. At Voodoo experience in New Orleans 2008 [[218]] with CHANT (he is called REVO industries on the side information)--Theother1986 (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


(please excuse me if I sound to sarcastic, I am just trying to get to the point) I am not sure what more is needed, he did not create a vaccine, and he is not on a reality show, hes not Andy Warhol (Wikipedia has people from reality shows on here) You have bands on here that have released a local album in their city and its not even on major labels, and he has over 10 prints released, shirts, stickers, bandannas. He has been "reviewed" or critiqued by over 5 of his peers 2 of them are known in the music and art scene and 2 others in performance arts. With links to these people if you have any questions. The reason no there are no interviews is because he does not do interviews.

  • keep There is footage (link)[[219]] and [[220]] of him at VOODOO experience for 2008. There are links from notable bands on their websites to his website (for a reason). The art house he created "(R)EVO industries is all over the internet. He has designed for several other known musicians. He was banned from Ebay and he already confirmed that. Not only that but I just found out he is working on a "commissioned" work of/for Soo Catwoman . I understand people trying to make sure this person exist...but HE does. He has done more shows and is bigger than some at least a handful of other articles on Wikipedia.

AS far as the Banned from Ebay thing goes, Ebay is not exactly going to release a press release stating they banned an artist, its one of those things they try to keep "wrapped". However he confirmed it and you are welcome to email him if you do not trust the email I cut and paste. Cheers thank you--Theother1986 (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you aren't looking at the guidelines used to establish notability and verifiability. There have to be multiple non-trivial independent references. Being banned from eBay or having links to his website don't assist in establishing notability or creating a referenced encyclopedia article. Drawn Some (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read or look at these pages to these websites, including the ones that people review him on his website with links to them. Apparently these guidelines are not always followed with other Articles on Wikipedia because there are many articles quoted with "opinions". Some of these "links" are from friends of theirs that created these websites and interviews. There are several other sites linked other than his own. His art company (that in many cases is titled towards him instead of his name) is all over the internet for shows and exhibitions and Festivals, You do not seem to understand that his "art company" is his alias that has become a moniker. SO every time you see "(R)EVO (REVO/revo) industries (concerning art) it is him. I have already given links to this, for some reason you are refusing to either look, or admit it.--Theother1986 (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep He is also listed on the Voodoo Experience page/article as a performer under the 2008 (Friday) lineup (he was in the 2007 lineup as well but its not mentioned on the article)--Theother1986 (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please don't make multiple votes in the same AfD. I understand you feel strongly about this. But the artist himself admits he is not yet notable enough for an article. One day he might be, and when that day comes, you are free to create it again. Gigs (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you however I will keep fighting for this article, most artist will say the same--Theother1986 (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepI am so glad I found this, I listed him on this page Benjie Bollox (for an artist) he designed the cover for the album of Riot Squad - "The Undying Breed" However I think the (Visual Painter) should be taken off its just redundant--Ubastiff (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is funny you asked this (I realize it is confusing) What I know of him: He has done art work (graphic design) for bands, He has had art shows, and he literally "paints live onstage" I have seen footage of him with big "film screens" painting behind and in front of performers (at large festivals). I would say almost a Visual Artist because to be exact, he literally: Creates art work visually in front of people. However, I would like to see more on the internet about him. I think he has a hand in "controlling that".--Ubastiff (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does anyone have access to a comprehensive (paid) news search tool? It might be helpful to determine if this gentleman has any offline newspaper mentions since it is claimed that he has attempted to "filter" the info about himself online. (I doubt this is really true, but it is at least worth checking.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:59, 5 May 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. Has several reliable sources Nja247 08:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signs (Bloc Party song)

edit
Signs (Bloc Party song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song. Shows no proof of inclusion per WP:NSONGS. No chart date. May be notable in the future but not now. OlYellerTalktome 02:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Clum

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

The article is about a would-be candidate for the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign. He may need to consider better PR for his campaign: Google News searches turn up nothing to confirm the notability of this endeavor. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SPECULATION, notability Gigs (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDILY DELETED, G5. Banje (or anyone else), if you want to take another stab at this, be my guest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Seventh Brother

edit
The Seventh Brother (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sad thing is, if you check the article history you'll see he created it, vandalized it with another sock, then undid the vandalism to try to make the first sock look more legit. *shaking head* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I actually talked to him on my talk page, and now that I look at the history, he came along as an ip and made all these weird nonsense edits. I feel like I need a shower now. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't matter now who wrote it, as it is now wiki's... and we have taken it under our wing. It is now sourced, and expanded... improved from what was first authored. Be unhappy with the editor, but the article now belongs to us all and we have the opportunity and responsibility to make it worthy of the project, aand thus showing the puppet what can be accomplished within the rules. Being the work of a puppet does not make the additional informations automatically false... only makes them suspect. So in checking, the information passes V, is not false, and improves the project. Attack the messenger if you wish, but the message in this instance is sound. No sense tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:49, 6 May 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 00:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Tsankov

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

A non-notable judge. Google News searches turn up nothing to confirm notability. The article does not meet WP:BIO and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:37, 1 May 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. Good arguments advanced by both sides, but it's fairly obvious at this point that there is not going to be any consensus at this time. Further discussion should be taken to the article's talk page. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland–Ukraine relations

edit
Iceland–Ukraine relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another laughable random combination. non resident ambassadors. the only thing in common is that their respective ambassadors are both based in Helsinki which will make it easy for meetings. LibStar (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWhat is disruptive is any effort to halt a properly formed AFD before its time period has concluded. The fact that a very few editors are debating somewhere as to whether there should be a notability guideline does not and has not prevented AFDs on the subjects of the proposed guideline from deleting the articles. The vast majority of such guidelines fail to gain consensus, anyway, such as efforts I have seen for schools, shopping malls, news stories and religious congregations. It is better to let the AFDs proceed,and take the common outcomes as an index of the community's standard.Edison (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 27 April 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) 00:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Biruitorul. can DGG find any reliable source showing notable relations between Iceland and Ukraine? currently quite a few of these laughable combinations are being deleted at the moment. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see several people telling us to wait. What I don't see is anybody pointing to anything that shows that Iceland and Ukraine have a notable relationship. I don't buy the argument that "someone, but not me, might find something". Mandsford (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability and Wikipedia is not a directory. Better to mention foreign relations in the article about each country than to have an article about each "relationship" they have with one of the other 203 sovereign countries, since such bilateral article could total 20,000 or so for all pairs of countries. We do not need tens of thousands of such articles any more than we need articles about every celebrity's "relationships" with every other celebrity, or "relationships" or contracts between large companies, which also exist and both of which have more news coverage than most of these "relationships." Edison (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations has some well thought out advice (see Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral relations) for when bilateral relations between two nations are notable. This article does not even assert to meet any of them. Locke9k (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the merits The combination isn't quite as "laughable" as suggested by the nominator; there does appear to be a dialogue, nothing major, but perhaps enough for an article. Iceland and Ukraine have one thing in common-- they're both going bankrupt and in need of an IMF bailout, which would tend to put diplomatic ties on the back burner. A lot of duplicates in Google news, but here's what we have:
  • 2008 agreement on avoiding double taxation
  • 2006 agreement to simplify visas;
  • 2005 meeting of the foreign ministers on improving ties
  • 2004 Prime Minister Oddsson and President Kuchma meeting I don't believe in waiting for the sake of waiting, although if someone wants to rescue the article, I'd ask folks to revisit it. Mandsford (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first three are from a somewhat questionable news source, but even if reliable, all four are trivial news events that are simply not worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia. There is simply no plausible claim for a double taxation avoidance agreement and a simplified visa scheme to qualify, in isolation, as anything more than trivia. Likewise with the two meetings, the importance of which is nowhere confirmed by a separate source actually discussing "Iceland–Ukraine relations", as opposed to news stories we may think constitute evidence of notability in this relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 22:02, 1 May 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 00:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think Tank Comedy

edit
Think Tank Comedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable comedy group, and the article appears to have been authored by one of its members. A speedy delete was declined because the group was cited in a one-paragraph mention from the Chicago Reader (which reviews everything playing in Chicago). The article’s claims of the group's popularity is not confirmed by Google News searches: [222] and [223]. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:54, 1 May 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 Educational inequality. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Education inequality

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

This article is a personal essay that would need a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. T3chl0v3r (talk) 00:20, 1 May 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Metaphysics

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

Non-notable use of two words. Anything relevant is already included in the article on metaphysics or the article of the individual cited here. Bongomatic 08:12, 24 April 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 00:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly notable, and there is plenty of information for a separate article. — Jake Wartenberg 02:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending exact quotations. The only quotation for the use of the term uses it generically. Any form of philosophical approach can I suppose be called "practical. " I do not know specifically what Latour calls his theory--I haven't read his more recent works The article about him does not use the term. His website does not us it either, or anything similar, either in English or French [224], [225] . The many Ghits to the term have nothing much to do with him--quite a number of disparate groups & people seem to have used the phrase. In GScholar similarly, there are many uses, none by him or attributed to him or citing him. In GBooks there are a number of books with the words in the title from the 19th century on, but nothing that seems to be derived from him either. The closest I can get to quotations by him is [226] drom Pandora's Hope: "We are now faced with many practical metaphysics, many practical ontologies" -- this again is a generic use. some quotations please? DGG (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nja247 08:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trinitario

edit
Trinitario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • This article should not be restored. It's not about number of references (and some of the sources are questionable relaibility). Nobody disputes that gang exists. What was disputed, and led to the article being deleted, was their lack of real notability. Their coverage is limited to almost only the NYC area. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if you are aware how DoJ comes up with most of this information. They simply send out voluntary questionnaires to law enforcement agencies every year and ask them to name the gangs in their jurisdiction and to rate their level of activity. If a police dept. in Alaska responds and says they have "Trinitarios" and a "low level of activity", the DoJ will report they are preent there, even if in reality that was only 1 or 2 members. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • alright, so its simply not just the new york city area. its nationwide. CashRules (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage of them is primarily NY, NJ and MA. And a member or two in a couple of states isn't really what I'd consider "nationwide". That's just my opinion. For example, it the XYZ Boys were found in NJ and then a member moved to NM with his family, got documented by a local PD there, are we going to call them "nationwide"? I'd say there needs to be a significant presence in 15-20% of the states to be considered "nationwide". Yes, that is an arbitrary number, but I think it is fair too. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:47, 25 April 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, 1 May 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Rigg

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

Bringing to AFD for full discussion, after a failed {{prod}}. This individual isn't notable enough at this stage in his career for an encyclopaedia article to be written about him. If he did contribute some speeches for Obama, he's not yet 'regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors'. If he didn't, he drummed up some free publicity for himself that we shoudn't be exacerbating. --Nick Boalch\talk 10:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to see how he could be more notable at this stage in his career; he's participated (in whatever role) in some of the most important speeches of the 21st century, and under notable circumstances; he's been the focus of two publications in two of the most widely distributed UK newspapers: The Telegraph and The Guardian, as well as featuring in numerous other web-based articles; he's been the subject of controversy (although I personally very much doubt its validity since the email in question is never shown); he additionally ran Chris Huhne's publicised leadership campaign. '[...] some free publicity for himself that we shoudn't be exacerbating.' That almost suggests to me that because you don't agree with how he has become notable, he shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. Heck, I'm no supporter of the guy but I personally think he's notable, even at such an early stage in his career. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely after only 8.5 years you aren't prepared to declare which speeches are the most notable in the whole 21st century. Maybe we should wait a bit on that. :) Gigs (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an experienced user but new editor on Wikipedia I believe that this debate centres on the maxim that “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper”. Given that I am inexperienced I have referred strictly to the Wikipedia policies on the biographies of living persons.

“Wikipedia is a high-profile, widely-viewed website with an international scope, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies.”

Following this statement the BOLP policy states:

“Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry.”

And continues:

“If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.”

The notability section on individuals also states: “The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.”

However, that section leaves some ambiguity. “If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.”

In this case, the individual’s role was not significant and interest in it is of an ephemeral nature. Of Obama’s speechwriters only Jon Favreau has a Wikipedia entry. Favreau of course has been the lead spechwriter in two Presidential election campaigns. The many others involved in Obama’s speeches, even those now working in the White House, do not have entries, despite news coverage of their contribution, because they have only been involved in one event.

Regardless of whether or not Rigg was involved, participation in this minor way does not merit an article according to the Wikipedia policy on people known only for one event. DesertWeasel99/21.58 29 April 2009

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculation has no place in Wikipedia. Articles must have references to prove their subjects notable and to verify the information. As several other editors have pointed out, this article does not meet those standards. Drawn Some (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article says he was "part of a much larger team" on the Obama speeches. That doesn't sound particularly notable to me. Gigs (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS are also cited. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Williams

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

This article seems to fail the notability requirements. Wikipedia:Notability (people) suggests that "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" but this doesn't seem to be the case here. The single article in the New York Post does not satisfy this requirement. Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) suggests that "A criminal act is notable if it receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope" but again this doesn't seem to be the case here. I'd therefore propose that it is deleted because it doesn't satisfy the notability criteria. I note that there is only one incoming link from another article but even that doesn't seem particular relevant and so that is probably another indication of the lack of notability of this particular individual. There might be justification to mention this individual in other Scientology related articles but a separate article is not merited. Adambro (talk) 10:24, 24 April 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, 1 May 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 00:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max de Lucia

edit
Max de Lucia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article somehow doesn't seem correct and is hardly verifiable. There appears to be a Max de Lucia active in jazz[238], but that's an Italian drummer, part of the Ghepardi Boptet and other line-ups. But I can't find a 16 year old Englishmusician who has any link with Clare Southworth[239], SImon Mulligan[240], any Philharmonic[241], the BBC[242] or anything Gramophone related[243] So either this is a hoax, a mix-up between different people, or soemthing remarkably unverifiable. Fram (talk) 09:30, 24 April 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, 1 May 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 00:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Girls (song)

edit
Hot Girls (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NM. Not a charting single, no indication of notability, no content, no sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Europe22 (talk • contribs) 24 April 2009

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, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Fishing Primus

edit
Gone Fishing Primus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a bootleg that has not received substantial coverage, and is thus non-notable. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:49, 24 April 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, 30 April 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. ^ http://archives.tcm.ie/westernpeople/2004/04/07/story19116.asp Judge: Can I trust Gardaí in Mayo?
  2. ^ http://www.independent.ie/national-news/shocked-judge-defends-criticism-of-gardai-175354.html 'Shocked' judge defends criticism of gardai
  3. ^ https://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2004/jul/18/are-garda-hands-tied-or-does-it-go-deeper/
  4. ^ http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6159&Itemid=38 Garda used ‘weasel words’ in denying assault
  5. ^ "Sexuality, What is sexual orientation?", American Psychological Association: Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions.... sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual...However, some people may use different labels or none at all., retrieved 2008-08-12 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |periodical= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_1&oldid=1142643985"