Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 1 May 3 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 speedy delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10/26/1986

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
10/26/1986 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unneccesary split of article, Information already covered in October 26 ∗ \ / (⁂) 04:06, 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 Marasmusine (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devilsaur

[edit]
Devilsaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Unsourced essay. WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wperdue (talk) 23:50, 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 Keep . The concensus appears to be that the Wired article is enough to carry notability. Marasmusine (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BVE Trainsim

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

Notability still not established with reliable sources. ZoeL (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThemFromSpace, Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking:
"Some Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be acceptable."
This is based on a lot of arguments on the subject.
Ikip (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: The program's community has always existed solely on personal websites and wikis. While it may not be as documented as some may like, that in itself doesn't disqualify it from its own article. I'm also sure Wikipedia has no shortage of non-documented articles that deserve deletion. This isn't one of them. --Julie-Anne Driver (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • With your reasoning, every program can have its own encyclopedic article as long as there is a fan base. The problem with this, however, is that if an article about such a program is solely written by the fans (which you can see from taking a look at which sources are being used), the article cannot inherently have a neutral point of view. If the fan base writes an article about their program, then they are advertising it based upon their own personal experiences and opinions which they publish on their personal sites. Obviously, you can post anything on your personal site and then claim to have found a source that attributes what you want to write in the article, but this is exactly the reason why Wikipedia doesn't tolerate such sources. Please read WP:V which explicitly mentions this. Please note that this is an official content policy, not just a guideline. Here a few quotes:
"Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Anyone can create a website [...] then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether [...] personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings [...] are largely not acceptable." "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources [...] so long as [...] the article is not based primarily on such sources."
You are asking for an exception to an official content policy. 87.123.81.60 (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: As per Julie-Anne Driver. If the criteria suggested by Andre for deletion is followed you'll need to delete VLC media player as well which is faintly ridiculous. To follow this would affect most freeware and probably a lot of commercial software as well. Alex Sims (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article seems to be poorly referenced. However, despite this, I believe it could probably be easily referenced by reliable third party sources, since I think VLC media player is fairly notable and was probably written up in magazines, newspapers, reliable source websites like CNET or Wired, the exceptions for certain blogs or self-published pages, etc. (here are some: [1] [2] [3] [4]). This article was nominated for deletion several years ago and kept under the assumption that sources could be found. Magazines and other publications were mentioned but none were provided. We are forced to conclude that sufficient references do not exist or cannot be found. Andre (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete for lack of third-party reliable sources. - Mailer Diablo 10:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Although it's a very popular game (it has eaten many of my hours that should have been spent doing something productive), it doesn't appear to pass the notability guidelines. A quick search hasn't turned up any reviews other than forum postings etc - nothing that passes WP:RS. I'm surprised there isn't anything more substantial out there, but, if there isn't, the article has to go. Tevildo (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it is admittedly a very popular game, and if verifiable material is availableto talk about it, it is notable. popularity is notthe same as notability, but it is one form, of it (unmpopular things can be notable as well). DGG (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Covered at Wired News here. Also, it is a popular game. Coverage is reliable sources is not always the best way to determine importance. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what is wired news? Ikip (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wired News is, I would suggest a reliable source. Alex Sims (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept Wired News per se, however, an article called The Best Free Train Simulator isn't exactly the best source to base a neutral-point-of-view article on. 89.247.232.105 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is. We'd shitcan someone's essay about how awesome the game is, but when a reliable source gushes on and on, then we need to reflect that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 17:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I consider the article to be notable for the following reasons. The section about openBVE describes software that is a new version of BVETrainsim, written over the past year, without any information or assistance from the original writer. This is a new program that copies the features of BVE Trainsim as an open source program. I would suggest that if a piece of work is copied, this implies that the original piece of work is worth copying and therefore noteable. Also the fact that many individuals have independently created routes to work with BVE Trainsim also points to its notability. The article on openBVE is also currently being considered for deletion. One possible option is to merge the articles as a summary of software that uses the techniques pioneered by BVE Trainsim, giving openBVE equal prominance. This also addresses the comment that the article is written like an advertisment.--Chris1515 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are more reliable sources on OpenBVE ([5] [6] [7] [8] [9]) than there are about BVE Trainsim ([10]). Why has OpenBVE's article been deleted today, but I'm pretty convinced that this article will stay? This already feels like a systemic bias. If this article was in fact about BVE Trainsim, then why is OpenBVE, a different software, included as a subsection? It's not an add-on after all, but a different piece of software. The section should be removed. To sum this article up: A history section, which is a self-description of the programmer's views, a tools sections, which is an unsorted list of advertised software, and what is remaining quotes from fewer reliable sources than was available for OpenBVE, which got deleted. I don't understand it. 89.247.213.247 (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added references to reviews on websites outside the program's user community--Chris1515 (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not surprised that the openBVE article was deleted. No-one said KEEP in its discussion and the article had already been deleted 7 days before, so I do not expect it will be allowed to return. I hope that this article, which has been here since 2004, will be kept. If a separate openBVE article is not being allowed at present, the only option is to include it as a subsection of this BVE Trainsim article. As indicated in my previous comment, I would suggest that this article should start with a summary of those aspects that are common to both programs, followed by a description of each program.--Chris1515 (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD discussion is not a vote. By the way, it does not make any sense to keep two different programs under one common article that has the name of just one of these programs. If this article is about BVE Trainsim, then it should be so, with all references to openBVE removed (which is a different piece of software). If an article about Linux wasn't allowed, you wouldn't want to include all information you know about Linux in an article on Windows, either, do you? And also, how long an article has been available here is irrelevant to Wikipedia's content policies. If five suggested sources on openBVE result in a deletion of one article, then only one source of comparable quality cannot rectify a keep. 87.123.90.47 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make an amendment: WP:N - Including two programs under a common article, and naming that article after just one of these programs, cannot be neutral. If you had two separate topics, e.g. British English and American English, you wouln't file it under British English, either. If it's two programs - and both have equally weak sources - then there should be two articles. And if not, then the program unaffiliated with this article should not be mentioned here. Otherwise, I begin to see a bias among Wikipedians and admins: in that they favor one sim over the other and handle both differently - especially as they are closely related. 87.123.90.47 (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources on openBVE establish - if anything - notability for openBVE, but not for BVE Trainsim. 87.123.90.47 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wired magazine gives it a third party media coverage, which meets the current notability guidelines. Dream Focus 01:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There are two third party reviews by different individuals at http://www.uktrainsim.com/index2.php?form_reader=bve4 and http://www.uktrainsim.com/index2.php?form_reader=bve.Eezypeazy (talk)
  • Comment The article Train simulator lists 7 train driving simulations, including BVE Trainsim and openBVE. The other 5 commercial software products that are listed each have their own article. None of these are being considered for deletion, even though some have fewer references than BVE Trainsim or openBVE. If individual software products are only entitled to have their own Wikipedia article if they are notable, this raises the question of what to do about new software. Since openBVE is new, it seems to me, that it is best described in the BVE Trainmsim article, since that is subject to which it is most likely to be considered as an alternative. If it then becomes sufficiently notable to satisfy the Wikipedia community, it could have its own article in the future. I understand the concerns made earlier about not having 2 programs in the same article. An alternative could be to rename this BVE Trainsim article as BVE Train Simulation, or something similar, which could cover both BVE Trainsim and openBVE. The article could always be split into separate articles at some time in the future.--Chris1515 (talk) 22:13, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of wedding terms

[edit]
Glossary of wedding terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is a list of wedding terms, however, Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a dictionary. Furthermore, there is no clear consensus on what a "wedding term" is. TNXMan 23:12, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial replacement

[edit]
Commercial replacement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined A1 speedy. This article merely states that a "commercial replacement" is what takes the place of a commercial break on some channels (duh!) but gives no example of what such a replacement could consist of, hence my tagging. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say that specifically, but the only use for commercial replacement on cable/sat systems is for local/provider ads (the pitches for PPV, for instance). However, the sentence is so poorly written that it doesn't mention it as that use. Nate • (chatter) 05:03, 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 as per consensus and the absence (beyond the nominator) for requested deletion. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra effect

[edit]
Cobra effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable term. Google returns few hits, most of them unrelated. References inserted in deprodding shed very little new light. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:50, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania–Switzerland relations

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

Well, aside from the Berne incident and two recent referenda (which didn't really impact relations as such), there isn't much to see. Sure, there've been the usual visits (note the extremely warm handshake exchanged between the Romanian and the Swiss Presidents), but there's nothing special about those (at least nothing encyclopedic, as opposed to newsworthy), and there's trade - but perhaps half a billion dollars' worth, in two economies that are hundreds of billions of dollars in size. To be precise, 0.6% of Romanian exports go to Switzerland, and 0.9% of imports come from there. Oh, and this brand of milk was started by a Swiss - but let's not degenerate into trivia. The point is, this relationship is nothing sort of mundane, and the lack of independent in-depth sources means we should delete. If there's really interest in linking the Berne incident with the referenda, we could always create a Category: Romania–Switzerland relations for that. Biruitorul Talk 21:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Romania's recent EU accession coupled with an ongoing integration of Switzerland into the European market through treaties has led to extensive coverage of issues pertaining to Swiss-Romanian relations in Swiss media in recent years, most especially related to the Swiss referendum, February 2009, but also e.g. concerning armament deals [11], foreign aid to Romania [12] or Swiss media group Ringier's entry into the Romanian market [13], and that's just the first page of German-language news search results. A 2006 report about a ministerial meeting notes that the countries share a "strong economic and cultural relationship" ([14]). A 2007 report about a state visit of the Romanian president in Switzerland adds that Romania is Switzerland's most important trading partner in South Eastern Europe ([15]). This leads me to believe that there is more than enough material available for an article on this topic.  Sandstein  11:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For Ringier (which anyway doesn't have to do with the Swiss government, being a private entity), couldn't we expand on its Romanian venture at Ringier? And while Romania is Switzerland's most important trade partner in SE Europe, how much does that really mean in context (given that, for Romania at least, trade with Switzerland makes up under 1% of GDP)? And yes, of course a ministerial meeting would have a declaration that the relationship is "strong", but I don't know how much importance we can really attach to that. As for the Iraq business, while it did make the news, it's also probably something we'd never consider including elsewhere - surely it's not important enough for Foreign relations of Switzerland? Finally, the referendum article needs expansion on the Romania/Bulgaria angle, but what could be said here can surely be said there, in greater depth and in its proper context. In sum, then, I respectfully disagree on the potential for an article (the category option I mentioned above remains viable - update: I see the category has now been created), though anyone is welcome to prove me wrong if this is kept. - Biruitorul Talk 15:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to assume that the scope of the article is limited to diplomatic or other intergovernmental relations. I, on the other hand, would conceive of an article with this title as encompassing all relations between the countries, including cultural and economic ties. The articles I linked to illustrate the potential for an article on this general topic. I do not mean to argue that the specific facts these few articles report need to be included in the article, although some eventually may.  Sandstein  20:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think an article on bilateral relations should focus on intergovernmental ties, but not exclusively, if other ties exist. And I didn't mean to be dismissive of the articles you found, but I think I provided at least plausible reasons why they shouldn't be used. The potential for a well-developed article seems rather weak, though I respect your opinion. - Biruitorul Talk 06:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even on the basis that Intergovernmental relationships are necessary, they include economic ties. Enough of this has been shown. But I don't think thats necessary at all . We can only go by the article title: "R-S Relations", not R-S diplomatic relations, or political relations of government relations. any relations between the two countries. The articles started out with diplomatic relations only, but that was a among the many mistakes in the way they were created. DGG (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. If there are sources to be added to it as alleged above, get on with it, because as it stands it is cruft. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete?. One could say it is bizzar to have articles for the relations between Switzerland (or Romania, but I know nothing about Romania) and all the countries in the world. Actually this article says nothing. It might have been interesting if there was some minor history between the two countries but I cannot think of any and have read nothing. Trompeta (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have just seen the France–Switzerland relations article, it should be much longer but look at it.
  • There is also a webpage by the Swiss foreign department dedicated to "Bilateral Relations between Switzerland and Romania" at [16], which goes into some detail. Moreover, a 384 page monograph has been published on the subject: Chinezu, Claudia (2001). Roumanie - Suisse: approches diplomatiques, économiques et culturelles. Editions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse. ISBN 282710914X. OCLC 50053030.  Sandstein  09:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Sandstein -- especially his recent discovery of two studies on this relationship. On a tangential note, what's with all of the circles on the illustration to this article? -- llywrch (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The circles mark countries whose relationship with Romania is even less significant than that of Switzerland :-) Vmenkov (talk) 01:40, 9 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. Stifle (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-punk revival

[edit]
Post-punk revival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible neologism based on a single allmusic article, lots of original research here neon white talk 13:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noted it's use in some reliable sources but there's is only the allmusic article that really covers it in any significance as required for a neologism. Some of the source also appear to attribute the term to differing concepts. --neon white talk 17:59, 22 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) 00:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hundreds of articles link to this one, and deleting this would leave hundreds of redlinked genres in articles, or if these were delinked no explanation of what post-punk revival means, which would be a bigger problem than leaving this here. Approx. 155 Google news results for "post-punk revival" (e.g. this) suggest it's widely-enough used to be sufficiently 'notable', and verifiability doesn't appear to be a problem. --Michig (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no significant coverage there. Remember that a neologism does not establish notability by use but by coverage. --neon white talk 09:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where? --neon white talk 09:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
here and here, for one. It took me about thirty seconds of Google-fu to find these, so I'm sure that I could find more if I really looked hard. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:34, 4 May 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) 21:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if i am wrong but Reynolds' book is about post-punk only rather than 'post-punk rivival'. --neon white talk 09:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained, the post-punk revival is discussed in the Afterword of the book, as an aspect of post-punk's legacy. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The stylus article doesnt mention the term by name only discuss a rivial of such sounds, not great for notability. --neon white talk 09:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Stylus article refers to "p-punk revival", I think it's pretty clear what it's talking about, especially given the context of the article at the beginning talking about "post-punk". --JD554 (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Though leaning towards Keep. If it's kept the entry should be edited/expanded. That list of bands doesn't belong. If it's deleted it should be added (and the links redirected) to the main "Post-punk" entry. There's no question that "post-punk revival" is a legitimate term after all. --KatjaKat (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merging would be a better solution. In fact almost the entire article is already contained as a section in the post punk article. It might be worth working on that section and spinning out if necessary later. --neon white talk 09:14, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super OS

[edit]
Super OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable distribution; no third-party sources LucAndrea (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There are plenty of third party sources on a link already in the article ( [19] ), including popular sites like lifehacker ( [20] ), softpedia ( [21] ), distrowatch ( [22] ), and many other less known sites... What information in the article would you like better sourced? maybe we can find more references for that? As a side note, there is also a mention in lifehacker of a tool included in the distro by the same developers (App Runner): [23]. While I agree this might not be as notable as distros like Ubuntu or Fedora, we have to face it that it is pretty hard for a recent (it seems to be at least from 2008, not sure if it is older...) open source project to get reviews/etc... Also note that this was "Super Ubuntu" in the past, so some coverage probably uses that name... -- SF007 (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I use this distro as my main OS, but I don't think that it conflict of interest... I also use others and I also edit their articles... SF007 (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as notable as any other distro. Note: I don't use it or any other version of Linux, but use of something is not a COI. If that was the case, 99% of all edits would be COI. It would only be a conflict if you were an author. RoyLeban (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I added a 3rd party source. Agree its basically as notable as many distros. Those refs above or others must go in. I tagged it as such. Widefox (talk) 13:00, 9 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. A discussion as to whether or not to merge may be opened on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1520 New Hampshire Avenue

[edit]
1520 New Hampshire Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The information was removed from Embassy of Jamaica in Washington, D.C. and the building itself doesn't meet notability requirements. Articles such as Embassy of Uzbekistan in Washington, D.C. and Thomas T. Gaff House combine the architectural, historical, and diplomatic information into one article. APK straight up now tell me 20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any relevant information into the embassy article. - Biruitorul Talk 20:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. The nominator is flawed in nominating the article despite it having existed for only a few years, it is displaying an "underconstruction" tag and should at least be given time for improvement. Beside which, there is precedent for seperate articles where the building has its own "claim to fame". I'm not at my own computer so I'm unable to find the articles. The nomination should be withdrawn immediately. HJMitchell You rang? 21:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you mean hours, not years. There is precedent for combining the information, as I've already mentioned. APK straight up now tell me 22:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was in a hurry! Yes, I meant hours. The precedent to which I refer is 972 Fifth Avenue, Canada House and, I'm lead to believe, a number of other articles. It is my opinion that the information is worthy of its own article as an architectural structure as the embassy cannot do it justice without being labelled as "trivia"- apparently Biruitorul's favourite word. The embassy article needs to focus on the diplomacy and there is, I feel, a use for the information on the building in a separate article. If there was nothing interesting about the building, I would agree with you but there is, in my opinion, enough to warrant an article. HJMitchell You rang? 03:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge I don't think it's a good idea to cover the building and the embassy separately, but if we really have to, so be it. There are enough reliable sources to consider the building notable under WP:GNG. - Mgm|(talk) 12:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reliable sources are not discussing the actual building, only the people/organizations that used the building. I added them to the original embassy article to avoid another 2-sentence stub. The information and sources in 1520 New Hampshire Avenue were just copy and pasted; I don't see any evidence of the building's notability. Ref #1 is about the embassy. Ref #2 is about property value and being located in a historic district (almost every building in Dupont has a high property value and contributing property status; this is nothing special). Refs #3-7 have nothing to do with the actual building and don't even include a full sentence covering the topic. They're directories and other material I used to simply show past ownership. APK straight up now tell me 15:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm perfectly honest, I'm inclined to agree with you. However, the embassy article was struggling to cover bothe the architectural heritage of the building, which is why I split it. The precedents to which I alluded are very similar cases. The building has certainly had notable owners and is of significance in that it's been used for more than just the embassy, so it's not necessarily appropriate to have its only coverage in the embassy article. HJMitchell You rang? 19:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an interesting situation. The Embassy of Jamaica in Washington, D.C. article was a mix of information on the building and on the embassy before HJ Mitchell dealt with the matter and separated out the information. However, to be taken into consideration is that the Embassy article was very new, and had simply gathered together some basic facts about the embassy and it's location. Early days yet, and it remains to be seen how the embassy article develops, but information about the embassy building is certainly very appropriate in the embassy article. Also to be taken into consideration is the notability of the building by itself. I'm not convinced that the references as they stand do assert notability enough that the building has to be dealt with as an article separate from the embassy. The other Dupont Circle embassy articles are dealt with as one unit. My conclusion is to remerge the material. It can either be 1520 New Hampshire Avenue or Embassy of Jamaica in Washington, D.C., but having two short articles, in which material is duplicated, is unnecessary. As the refs indicate that Embassy of Jamaica in Washington, D.C. is the more notable, then Merge to Embassy of Jamaica in Washington, D.C. is the most appropriate solution. SilkTork *YES! 15:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good point well made. However, I believe that it is worth having an article on the building in its own right. The embassy article could, I think, could be improved and expanded, as could this one, without, for example, architectural information being branded "trivia". It was my intention to revisit both and add more information but I shall await the conclusion of this debate before doing so. HJMitchell You rang? 15:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who described the architectural information as "trivia"? Have you been able to locate a source that specifically covers the building? APK straight up now tell me 05:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alas not, though I'm still looking. It is difficult to find information. Maybe if the article were to be merged back, it would be better than nothing. However, there is definite notability of the building outside of the Jamaican Embassy. There must be information out there but I'm running out of places to search. I wonder if I might be on the wrong side of the Atlantic. HJMitchell You rang? 22:54, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia Metallum

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

This article was previously nominated without resulting in a consensus. Fansite; article is entirely sourced from its subject; I've seen nothing that proves that it or its founders are notable or authoritive in any way. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would also like to remind you guys of what was posted in the latest discussion about MA:

The result was No consensus. The nominator and subsequent participators here have presented a very strong case for deletion based on our relevant notability guideline for websites. However, some credence needs to be given to the availability of sources for a genre of music that historically does not get any mainstream media coverage, such as metal/death music. The "alexa ranking", or hit count, as cited by Evenfiel below, in this case, does garner some significance as being a high-traffic website for its fanbase. Looking at the concerns of the notability camp, and the ramifications/fallout of deleting this article as far as the List of online music databases, they balance themselves out to a firm "no consensus" to delete. (I'm not a vote counter by any means, but as an FYI, it came out in support of non-consensus closure, at 9D/8K. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evenfiel (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am in agreement with Evenfiel's observations above. In the absence of mainstream media's coverage of the metal/death music scene, EM fills an important gap. And I believe more than a few metal-related articles on Wikipedia use EM as a reference. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 00:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The argument that EM is the only available source for coverage of this type of music doesn't hold water. There are (rarely-cited) magazines such as Metal Hammer and Terrorizer that cover it, and try searching for "heavy metal", "death metal" or "black metal" over at Amazon - book sources are available for genuinely notable bands - the problem is that unfortunately a lot of editors who work on these articles don't cite proper sources. EM is not a reliable source and should not be used as a reference in articles here. The argument that we should keep it because it's used as a source in some articles isn't a good one at all.--Michig (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. We've had this discussion at AfD once; what's supposed to have changed in the meantime?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:46, 3 May
    Have you actually read the page you linked to? 'NOTAGAIN' is part of 'arguments to avoid in deletion discussions', because it's not much of an argument. The page states that frivolous nominations can be speedy-kept, but this nomination is not frivolous - the nominator makes a good case for deletion. Robofish (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only encyclopedic books on metal in amazon are those by Garry Sharp Young, which are heavily incomplete, outdated and with info lifted straight from Encyclopaedia Metallum. Other than that, the only books available are those that deal with the famous bands of each genre. If you think that all genuinely notable bands have books sources, you should start to nominate for deletion most metal bands in Wikipedia. Even if Wikipedia does not consider EM a source, it's heavily used as such by journalists specialized in metal, but I guess this does not has much to do with the current discussion, which is already a pointless rehash of an old one. Evenfiel (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about these books, all not written by Garry Sharpe-Young? [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Sure, these might not give much coverage to some obscure Scandinavian band that only ever released a couple of demos and a run of 100 CD-Rs on an 'underground' label, but that's probably because they don't belong in an encyclopedia. If EM is the only source available for these bands then I think says a lot about their notability.--Michig (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1, 2, 3 are not encyclopedic in any way or shape. You will not find any complete discography, for example. 4 was published in 1983. 5 is a book with photos. (Did you even care to read what those books are about?). 6 seems to only have a few bands, omitting obvious notable bands, like Opeth, Nightwish, and Bruce Dickinson's solo band. 7 I admit that I don't know, but that book was released in November 2008. The last one is only about Swedish metal.Evenfiel (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Rough Guide certainly is encyclopedic (take a look through the first few pages on Amazon), and surely a book that "is only about Swedish metal" is a reasonable source for articles about Swedish metal bands? You can't expect all sources to give you an alphabetic listing of bios and discographies - writing well-sourced articles on bands isn't as easy as that. Bands such as Opeth have been covered in magazines such as Terrorizer, and even Allmusic has a reasonable bio [32], which, unlike EM, could not have been written by band members and fans. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Rough Guide is indeed quite rough. Look at their entry for Accept. There is hardly any info about the albums, something that EM has. About the other book, maybe (I haven't seen the book) for swedish death metal, but that's just a fraction of the metal bands covered in Wikipedia. Also, I don't think that the significance of EM to Wikipedia is due to the biographies. It's importance relies on the information about current and previous line-ups, as well as complete discographies and info about each album, something that you won't find in those books, and many times not even in the official sites. Evenfiel (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have no problem with any source being used to find info on discographies, and I have no problem with EM being used as a source of information, but it cannot be the only source that an article relies on. For bands that are notable, other sources will exist.--Michig (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage of a site consisting solely of user-edited comment; fails WP:WEB. Alexa ratings are not signifiers to notability, and as Michig quite rightly points out there are plenty of commercially published print resources for the genre of heavy metal. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment.Maybe you didn't read this, so I'll post it again The nominator and subsequent participators here have presented a very strong case for deletion based on our relevant notability guideline for websites. However, some credence needs to be given to the availability of sources for a genre of music that historically does not get any mainstream media coverage, such as metal/death music. The "alexa ranking", or hit count, as cited by Evenfiel below, in this case, does garner some significance as being a high-traffic website for its fanbase.. It also amazes me that someone who created articles for such "notable bands" as Bestial Mockery, Diaboli and Revenge wants to see EM deleted cause it's not notable. Hey Michig, you'll have something to do after this discussion is closed. *hint* --Evenfiel (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even though I was the nominator for the last AFD, I was actually going to sit this one out for reasons that are irrelevant to this AFD. Since this AFD is already degenerating into irrelevant topics, I've decided to throw my two cents into the fray. While I respect Keeper76 as an admin, I believe he or she came to a wrong conclusion at the previous AFD. However, I did not felt strongly enough about the matter to pursue it any further. The only reason why the article was kept is because of the Alexa ranking that Evenfiel kept bringing up but the popularity or lack thereof for a website has no relevance in determining whether a site is notable according to wikipedia's very own guidelines on the subject. Notability is not about reliability, so the entire discussion above between Evenfiel and Michig is completely irrelevant. Notability is not about popularity. There is nothing in wikipedia's policies that state a website is notable because it is popular. There are many, many sites that attract more internet traffic than the metal-archives but they do not have an article on wikipedia because none of them, like the metal archives, fulfil the notability requirements of wikipedia. I was not going to bring this up either but since Evenfiel has decided to disparage the reliability of another editor's opinions above, I would like to draw attention to the fact that Evenfiel is actually one of the biggest contributors to the Metal Archives and shares the same highest rank with only four other individuals, including the two owners of the site. I think there is a blatant conflict of interest when someone promotes as reliable a site that houses their own original contributions while questioning the value of books from such notable publishers as Rough Guides, McFarland & Company and Feral House. --Bardin (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this discussion has got off-topic, but a large part of the rationale behind not deleting this last time was the suggestion that bands in the genres covered by EM are not covered elsehwere, which is what I have been arguing against. I would like to see someone come forward with a good argument for EM being suitable for an encyclopedia article, rather than just being useful or popular.--Michig (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being notable for an article on wikipedia is a different issue to being reliable as a source for other articles on wikipedia. This website is neither. --Bardin (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to WP:Search_engine_test, hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability.. So, it means that, if you examine well the hits, then it will provide useful information to us. What I'm saying is that, if you compare EM's Google hits or Alexa ranks with any other metal related website, you'll see that EM has far more google hits and is way better ranked in alexa. I'm comparing oranges to oranges here, and it turns out that EM is the most popular site in the metal community, period. As for my relation with EM, I never tried to hid it. I even use the same nick. As for the value of those books, I didn't say they are not reliable. I said they are not complete and cannot be used for checking discographies or line-ups, for example. They might do well what they are pretending to, but they don't have complete info about those bands and that's a fact. Anyway, this discussion should be about notability, not reliability. Evenfiel (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hatted extended wrangling
  • I'll ask again.

    Considering this nomination in the light of WP:NOTAGAIN, what has actually changed since the last AfD?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Consensus can change. The last AFD took place over a year ago and was initiated by a different nominator, i.e. me. --Bardin (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It can indeed, and in this case the nominator seems to have been hoping it will, but without bringing any actual new arguments to the table.

        If you disagree with the previous closure of this debate, the right place to challenge it is at DRV, not here. We have WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED for a good reason.

        This nomination should be closed as keep unless some fresh evidence or some new line of argument are advanced.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • Yes, the reason being that wikipedia has a provision for editors to write essays. WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED and WP:NOTAGAIN are all part of the same essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. I will certainly bring this AFD to deletion review if anyone dares to close it not because of a wikipedia policy or guideline but an essay that nobody is obligated to follow. --Bardin (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...which boils down to WP:ONLYESSAY.  :)

            Essays are a convenient shorthand to explain my point of view, and the closer will know exactly how much weight to give them. I hope the closer will agree with me that if there's nothing more to this nomination than a desire to rehash the previous AfD in the hope of getting a different outcome, then DRV is the right place for it.

            The closer, as an admin, will certainly know about the guideline that underpins my point of view, which is WP:FORUMSHOP.

            Besides that, there's a WP:COMMONSENSE reason why AfD's are closed and not simply relisted again forever.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            • This has nothing to do with forum shopping. The nominator above has not raised this issue anywhere else. The last AFD was made by a different person (me) over a year ago. Many articles undergo multiple AFD nominations. A gap of over one year is certainly long enough for one to see whether consensus has changed. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can change over a year; our understanding of those policies and guidelines can change over a year; and our opinions of this article can change over a year too. You make it seem as if it is wrong for the nominator to hope that this AFD will lead to a different outcome when that is obviously the entire point of nominating an article for deletion again. Wikipedia permits articles to be nominated for deletion more than once and many articles have been deleted only on their second, third, fourth, fifth or more deletion. The nominator has not done anything wrong in nominating this article for deletion again and the rest of us have not done anything wrong in participating in this discussion. If you disagree, I suggest you go to WP:AN instead of cluttering up this AFD any further with this irrelevant discussion. --Bardin (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) We aren't going to agree. To summarise the preceding discussion:
My position Bardin's position
This nomination is entirely based on arguments to avoid ATA is only an essay, and it should be disregarded in this case because consensus can change
This discussion should be at DRV because it advances no new arguments and presents no new evidence not already taken into account in the previous close Other articles are deleted from AfD in this way, so why not this one?
Such repeated nominations are forumshopping No they aren't, take this irrelevant discussion to AN

I'll let the closer decide which of us has the stronger argument. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? You are completely misrepresenting my position in that box of yours. For instance, I never said forum shopping does not matter. I said this is not forum shopping. Kindly remove that box of yours from this AFD. You are really going way beyond the subject of this AFD. --Bardin (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amended.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not asked for an amendment. I am asking you to kindly remove the entire box as a misrepresentation of my positions and an inaccurate summary of our discussion. Please let other editors, including the closing admin, to arrive at their own conclusions regarding our viewpoints. --Bardin (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the tabular format is a good way of analysing the strengths and weaknesses of varying arguments. However, I would not wish to misrepresent you, so please feel free to indicate the specific points you object to.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish I have not even seen this AFD in the first place now. I could do without all of this aggravation. I have already told you twice now that the box misrepresents my viewpoints and is an inaccurate summary of our discussion. You chose which points to include in your summary. You chose which points to present next to one another. You chose which points to ignore. I do not want to rehash our discussion again, point by point, repeating myself again. It is late and I have an early flight tomorrow. All I'm asking here is for you to just be nice, drop the box from this AFD as something wholly unnecessary. If you think your summary is accurate, do you not think that any closing admin would be able to come to the same conclusion just by reading our discussion? Please, I'm begging you here. Enough of this, okay? --Bardin (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. I'll just do my own summary, as if this AFD needs to get further degenerated into irrelevant discussion.

S Marshall position Bardin's position
This nomination should be closed because of WP:NOTAGAIN We should not close an AFD because of an essay that nobody is obligated to follow.
This nomination should be closed because the nominator has not brought up any new arguments from the last AFD. Consensus can change, editors' opinions can change, especially in a period of over one year.
Such repeated nominations are forumshopping The first nomination was done by a different person over a year ago so this is not forum shopping.
The nominator is doing something wrong by hoping that the outcome of this AFD will be different to the previous one. It is neither wrong nor unusual for an article to be nominated for deletion again, especially when the last nomination was made by a different person over an entire year ago.

If any admin wishes to strike off, rollback or otherwise hide this entire exchange between S Marshall and myself, please do so. --Bardin (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be an admin to hat an extended discussion; I've just done it. We can move the hat to include the entire discussion when we've finished.

I've amended my side of the table as shown below:

S Marshall's position Bardin's position
This nomination boils down to WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. The only previous nomination was made over a year ago by a different nominator so it is not a case of repeated listing till it gets deleted. We should not close an AFD because of an essay that nobody is obligated to follow.
This nomination should be at DRV rather than AfD because the nominator has not brought up any new arguments or evidence not considered in the the last AFD. Consensus can change, editors' opinions can change, especially in a period of over one year.
Repeated nominations are forumshopping The first nomination was done by a different person over a year ago so this is not forum shopping.
The nominator advances no new arguments and is simply hoping that the outcome of this AFD will be different. It is neither wrong nor unusual for an article to be nominated for deletion again, especially when the last nomination was made by a different person over an entire year ago.
It doesn't matter whether it was an hour ago, a week ago, a year ago or a century ago. There still are no new arguments here we haven't already considered at the previous closure. Consensus can change because the opinions of editors on the same subject/policies/guidelines can change, especially in a period of over one year.

—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Bardin says that it was another person who nominated by another person, so this is not forum shopping. Just look at the logs and you'll see that he, along with Blackmetalbaz, were the users who were enthusiastically trying to delete the article. Saying that it's not a forum shopping because it wasn't nominated by you is nothing more than a smoke screen.Evenfiel (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What log? I do not see any prod or CSD in the article history. Blackmetalbaz participated in the last AFD which was made over a year ago but that's nothing unusual. There is no forum shopping or smoke screen here and saying otherwise is nothing more than an attempt to paint this nomination in a negative light. --Bardin (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. 'Weak' because it would appear that the site is quite popular (relatively speaking) - the Alexa ranking has to count for something. But ultimately, 'delete' because it doesn't have any references to reliable sources, at all. I'd have thought that, if this truly is a notable, important and influential website, there would be some available references to prove that; as there apparently aren't, it must according to our guidelines be deleted. Robofish (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not one? Other than the interviews that are already linked in EM's article, indeed, there are no other articles that deal uniquely with EM, though the site is constantly brought up in interviews with metal bands. If you ask metal journalists where they get their info, it's usually in EM. Even Jeff Wagner, ex-editor of Metal Maniacs (which used to be the biggest metal magazine in North America), told me that he uses EM to look for info on his new book about Progressive Metal. This is the sort of popularity that doesn't translate into articles about EM, but it does exist.Evenfiel (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment when the first afd was closed as non-consensus, a second afd is not only permissible, but highly desirable. We want to achieve consensus. S Marshalls interpretation above simply does not make the least sense to me. The only facotr to consider is whether it is reasonable to do it only 4 weeks after the first one. I think it is. This is not a matter of nominating until it gets deleted. Its a question of nominating until there is some consensus on what to do with the article. If I had to give minimum times for this, I would say after a first afd ending in non-consensus, one month is long enough, though I would normally advise 2 months, because it increases the chances of getting a definite result. After a keep, I;d require at least 4 months, and better 6. (and double that for successive keeps My strong position against repeated rapid nominations has been clear since I came here. I consider this nomination perfectly acceptable, even from my view. No judgement on the article, which is not in my subject area of competence. DGG (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to direct DGG's attention here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. Maybe this doesn't mean much, but EM is one of the seven rock-related sites that are listed by the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Just like All Music, it's listed as a reference / database site. Also, EM was interviewed in 2005 by Miasma, a finnish printed magazine, and, since the last discussion, by Arsenic, a printed magazine from Quebec. Evenfiel (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability AND verifiability. Without multiple sources independent of the subject to provide verifiability, this article will never be more than a magnet for original research. Those two interviews the above editor mention are from amateur fanzines. One of the interviewer even uses a stupid nickname "satanick" like the two webmasters. There's no commentary on the website at all from either interviewer. It's like a recorded transcript of a casual conversation, the two webmasters making fun of other websites like rockdetector. No useful info and so even the wikipedia article does not cite anything from either interview. If we rtake out all the original research from the article, the only thing left will be one sentence about the Alexa ranking. This is no high school prom, popularity means nothing. --Anarchodin (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what if they use nicks? You are using a nick. What difference does it make? As for the interview's content, of course they talk about the site. Maybe you should read them again. Anyway, you didn't say anything about the Examiner.com article.Evenfiel (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not a reliable source. Someone hiding behind a nickname for an amateur fanzine is not a reliable source too. Other editors have addressed that examiner piece. All three are unreliable and/or not independent of the metal archives. --Anarchodin (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Plenty of people who write for metal magazines use nicknames, even in mainstream ones. To use a nickname is a non-issue in this case. As for the examiner piece, your "other editors" means one, Bardin, who did not answer me when I questioned him. Evenfiel (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • What's there to respond to, he thinks (and I agree) that the examiner piece is not independent of metal archives. Other editors who voted delete also agree implicitly or else they would have voted keep. You, as the "metal god" of metal archives, disagrees. no surprise. --Anarchodin (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's pretty weak to say that he's involved with metal archives just because he has an account there. 137,000 people have an account in MA. The guy who wrote it is far from being an active user of the site. All he did, since his account was created two years ago, was to submit two reviews. Also, back then, if you didn't have an account, you were not able to use the regular search. I wouldn't be surprised if his account was created just because he wanted to use the regular search. I didn't know he had an account there, and he never bothered to send his article to us. Btw, except for you and Robofish, all the other editors had already voted to delete EM one year ago. Evenfiel (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete WAY overdue for being removed from Wiki. Its inclusion just invites kids to try and use it as a ref even though ot fails wp:rs. The article should be removed and the link added to the spam blacklist. The Real Libs-speak politely 10:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a notable entity at all. I could make something like that in 10 minutes. 140,000~ accounts isn't an indication of notability either, by the way. ScarianCall me Pat! 11:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you search for pretty much any metal band on google, a EM link will be one of the first results, though I guess that people here will tell me that this doesn't mean anything. Evenfiel (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable website, WP:RS, WP:V. I gave Evenfiel's idea a try. From List of heavy metal bands, I searched in google and saw how many had results on the first page. I got to "cream metal band" before realising that I was wasting my time. I also find it funny that Evenfiel casts off two people as being the sole users wanting delete whilst he appears to me to be the only one fighting for inclusion. Anyhow, I don't want an argument so I'll leave now. Greg Tyler (t • c) 17:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cream and most of the other bands you've searched aren't in Encyclopaedia Metallum, so obviously you cannot find them. Most bands listed in that "Original Movement" list aren't in EM. The only band you've searched which is in EM is Black Sabbath. Try, for example, the bands from List_of_black_metal_bands or List_of_thrash_metal_bands. Just type their name on google and hit search. S Marshal also had quite a long discussion with Bardin, who was already fighting hard to delete this article one year ago. If you exclude everyone who had already voted in the other discussion, you have 2 keep and 5 delete.Evenfiel (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I went ahead and looked at the black metal bands you gave me. Choosing at random, of the 5 I selected to search 2 came up with EM links, Gramary and Magane. Whilst not trying to make it sound as if I'm trying to support a bias view, I wouldn't exactly call them the most notable musicians around. But you could be right to an extent. EM certainly may be popular for this genre of the music market. Does that make it a notable website? I wouldn't say so. Should it feature as a link on the bottom of, say, Black metal? I wouldn't object. Greg Tyler (t • c) 18:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not only black metal, it's all genres of heavy metal music. The bands you've searched before are not considered metal by EM's standards (They are classified as rock bands). If the band is in the database, it will probably appear as one of the first google results.Evenfiel (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • "You're searching for the wrong things, you need to be more specific" merely implies that this website is supporting a more-and-more niche market, further relieving its notability. Greg Tyler (t • c) 18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not really. I'm merely pointing that the site is about metal, not rock. If you search for Aerosmith, which is classified by wikipedia as hard rock, you won't get any results, merely because you are searching for the wrong band. Also, it would be remarkable that such a niche-specific site has so many google hits and such a high alexa ranking, specially if compared to other metal websites that have an article in wikipedia. Evenfiel (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perceived importance to a topic does not equal notability. Hit counts do not make for notability. Unless more independent reliable sources with non trivial coverage can be found to demonstrate notability it must be deleted. Spiesr (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does get some minor coverage as seen [1] and here if you check the new thread on the site it appears theat the creators were interviewed by Arsenic magizine. if any one can find the issue it could be helpful to the page.75.159.21.123 (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC) — 75.159.21.123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep - Some people seem to want to delete the article just because some other users use it as a source for wikipedia articles. Whether the site should be used as a source or not is a completely different argument, though. Plenty of sites shouldn't be used as sources but that has nothing to do with them having an article on wikipedia or being notable or not. The Metal Archives site is notable just for the huge amount of traffic it gets and obviously the number of people that use it for whatever reasons they use it for. Besides that some argue that MA is some sort of fansite. It is not a fansite. It is a site that is much like wikipedia that is open to users to add articles about bands and review information there. Also it's a site where people come to comment about albums, etc. At the very least it should be considered a notable forum site, whether reliable or not (or a good source or not). Therefore the article dealing with MA on wikipedia should be kept. Especially considering much less notable forums and sites with less traffic still have articles on wikipedia just because they have a high amount of people (traffic) coming to the site. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 04:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also - As a side note, I don't really see what's changed since the first afd. Nothing new is being brought up, but I realize that may not be the best argument for keeping the article. But I do have one more argument. There are other sources about MA than the site itself. Evenfiel mentioned some of them already, like the interviews. I suggest somebody put those sources in the article. Also, I just have to say that MA has the MOST comprehensive information about well-known to very rare/underground metal bands and albums anywhere on any site (incl. links to other official band/record sites, etc.). Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 04:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment About the Miasma Interview (The original is in this edition), some people dismissed it as useless because it was supposedly written for an amateur zine. Here is what a finnish friend told me: "I'd like to point out that someone mentioned Miasma as being an "amateur fanzine" or something; that's bullcrap, it's one of the top-3 metal mags in Finland, and sold in virtually every shop, kiosk and service station with a newspaper and magazine stand. What's more, they even have occasional sampler CDs and such, and the mag isn't a xeroxed crap paper like some foreigners seem to think." In other words, that interview should be enough to guarantee EM's notability. Evenfiel (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment That is possibly the first time I've heard "My mate says it's notable, so it must be" used in an AfD discussion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How naive I am. Of course that you, seeing that your dream is to delete this article, wouldn't believe that. So how can I prove that a finnish magazine is "notable"? According to their site, Miasma magazine is distributed by Lehtipiste, a professional press distribution (or whatever you call it) company. You can read their translated info here. Now here is the entry for Miasma magazine. So, what now? Should I prove that Lehtipiste is "notable" as well? haha Evenfiel (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the magazine article was just what you linked to for the interview, then it's really just the site owners talking about the site themselves. If the magazine article went beyond this and featured some journalistic coverage of the site in addition the the interview, as many magazine interviews do, it would probably be a reasonable example of significant coverage. The magazine appears to be professional so I see no reason to exclude it on those grounds. --Michig (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see no rule saying that "In additional to an interview, the magazine should also have some journalistic coverage of the site". The interview itself should be enough. I also have no idea if that was the only thing they published. I guess that the interview probably had some sort of introduction. Evenfiel (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:MUSIC excludes "Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising" from coverage that is considered adequate for demonstrating notability. I know we're not talking about musicians here, but the principle holds, and since the interview above is really just the site owners talking about the site in response to some pre-defined questions, it may not be considered significant independent coverage. If there was more than this in the article, however, it may do.--Michig (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:MUSIC does not apply here and you do not need to quote it because WP:WEB applies and it also has the same requirement, albeit worded differently. In one of its footnotes, it states that "Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Unsurprisingly, I agree with the other editors above who feel that the nature of these interviews do not fulfil the requirement of "people independent of the subject" writing and publishing non-trivial works that focus upon it. The only people in those interviews that discussed the website was the two owners of the website. The interviewers only asked questions. That's trivial. --Bardin (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Self-promotion and product placement", haha, (Unsurprisingly) I know you're really desperate to invalidate the Miasma interview, but this is getting ridiculous. They do not talk about their personal life there, and the interview was not some sort of PR stunt (if it is, then prove it). They talk about the site, just like a musician would talk about the composition and recording processes, line-up problems and so on. Evenfiel (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "It is one of the top 500 most-visited websites in five countries.[4]" They have a reference backing this up, on the alexa site. The number of active users, and amount of content, makes it notable. Dream Focus 17:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's been on WP:ATA since its creation. Many tens of thousands of websites will cycle in and out of the top 500 on Alexa, and having such-and-such Alexa rating doesn't facilitate writing a properly sourced article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:47, 9 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) 01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of retired The Price Is Right pricing games

[edit]
List of retired The Price Is Right pricing games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Duplication of Template:Retired Pricing Games. Article contains nothing more than a list of retired games. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:35, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Price Is Right pricing games

[edit]
List of The Price Is Right pricing games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Duplication of information found within Template:Active Pricing Games. Includes no additional detail about pricing games that isn't already discussed within the show's main article Sottolacqua (talk) 19:32, 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 as per consensus and no requests for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zhong Gong

[edit]
Zhong Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reason: gives no substantial information other than on of hundreds qigong movements. Should be mentionned in the main article about qigong with its impact on qigong movement. No article only for Zhong Gong Swissk9 (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge KEEP. The information, as you say, can be saved. If there is more than one major Falun Gong-type movement, that is certainly news to many of those outside China and even that fact would be valuable information. This article takes it a step further by describing a rivalry between the two. Of course some claims have to be thrown out properly referenced (i.e. the unsourced statement that it has more members) but much of the information is highly relevant. -moritheilTalk 21:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, :) I always respect editors who will change their minds. Ikip (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP Bad nomination. Incredibly notable. 161 Google news hits including several New York Times and several BBC articles. Several Los Angeles Times, several Washington Post. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Asian Political News, several Washington Times, Time magazine, United Press International, several Associated Press, Cincinnati Post, several Philadelphia Inquirer, Times Online, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, San Jose Mercury News, Wichita Eagle, National Journal, Encyclopedia Britannica, Ledger-Enquirer, Wired News, CNN, Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, several Le Monde Interactif, Lexington Herald Leader, Financial Times Deutschland, Chinese America: History and Perspective...and that is only the first hundred. In almost all of these articles the group is the central topic of the article. 3568 Google books mention this group. Ikip (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD discussion is mentioned on Talk:Qigong and Talk:Zhang Hongbao Ikip (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether something should be covered elsewhere is not a good reason for deletion. Merging content is discussed at WP:MRFD and doesn't involve deletion of any kind. - Mgm|(talk) 12:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty more substance is clearly available. Adding a fraction of it would solve the problem far more usefully. K2709 (talk) 18:29, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mibbit

[edit]
Mibbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hello, I am the user behind the ip 173.66.142.225. My PROD of this article was removed as vandalism. I would like to nominate this article because it has insufficient sources to indicate that this subject passes WP:WEB and there has been insufficient coverage of this to indicate that it is notable. I would also like to note that this article was created by a single purpose account and another user who has been spam username blocked. Myownusername (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Myownusername (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
— 173.66.142.225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Are you counting the iPhone store or one of the external links? Nil Einne (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete at this time. Of the "three sources", one is obviously good (CNET), one is questionable (Ajaxian, a blog, I'm not familiar with whether it really carries any weight), and one doesn't count at all (the app's page at the iPhone store is essentially a first party source and makes no assertion of notability,, all it proves is that this is an iPhone app; not all iPhone apps are notable). So we're left with, at most, 1.5 sources. I don't believe that 5 paragraphs in CNET and a blog entry demonstrate that this meets WP:N or WP:WEB. Add a few more sources and I'd be inclined to keep. Oren0 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Does not have "significant coverage" in reliable sources as required by WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, changing !vote based on recent rewrite, meets GNG. – ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I looked for sources to possibly expand this for DYK, and found only the sources in the article. Good luck.... Synergy 20:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Just wanted to point out that chatzilla sux, use pidgin. Gurch (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Oren0 and Ukexpat. Changing to Keep - per the rewrite.— Dædαlus Contribs— Dædαlus Contribs 21:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and heavily revise. CNET is a major source and the blog Ajaxian is a legitimate tech news source with scores of professional-quality articles. The Webmonkey mention (in "Further Reading") is arguably a third, but it's marginal. I agree we should not count the product pages. We have two strong sources and one weak source; if we could just find a better third source this would be a strong keep. As for the writing, that is obviously in need of improvement, but quality is no reason to delete as opposed to revising. -moritheilTalk 21:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cnet is an okay source although it's just one of the blogs so not their best reference of all time. Ajaxian may have a 'professional quality articles' it doesn't make them an RS. The webmonkey other then not appearing to be an RS, is almost a trivial mention. So one minor source is all we have. Hardly qualifies as notable. Nil Einne (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Per the 2 strong strong sources that already exist. Agree that it can use more. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Bad faith nomination. I simply cannot WP:AGF based on the contribution history and actions of the nominator, see Special:Contributions/173.66.142.225 and Special:Contributions/Myownusername.
    Nominator attempted both CSD A7 (web) and CSD G11 (spam) for an established article, [33] [34] neither of which were applicable. A7 does not apply to software and this article is obviously not spam.
    Immediately after these two CSDs were declined [35] 173.66.142.225 then attempted a {{prod}} [36] which was also rightly removed as vandalism. [37]
    173.66.142.225 also reported an older account/user at WP:UAA [38] and managed to get that user banned. [39]
    This article was not created by User:Mibbit as 173.66.142.225 has revised [40] [41] his nomination above to allege, see the article's revision history. The article was originally created by User:Axod. [42] [43] A CSD A7 was attempted twice when the article was created. The article was userfied, [44] rewritten, moved back to article space, and has since been edited by many other editors.
    173.66.142.225 also left an odd reply on User:Mixwell's talk page when he was warned for abusing CSD/prod. [45]
    173.66.142.225 / Myownusername has gone on to try to create trouble for other users on WP:AN/I when they attempted to deal with the blatant vandalism and disruption. [46] [47] Notice that the nominator referred to this as Rollback and called for outright banning of an established and reliable editor even though it was clear his prod was reverted with Twinkle.
    These are not the actions of a novice or newbie editor nor are these actions I would expect from any experienced or established editor.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Attacking the motives of the nominator is not an argument to keep, and a procedural argument doesn't make much sense given that several editors have !voted delete. Nothing in your lengthy diatribe addresses the issue at hand: does the subject of the article meet WP:N and/or WP:WEB? Oren0 (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Nor is AfD for cleanup. WP:WEB does not apply to software, note the multiple CSD A7 declines. Mibbit is notable for being an extremely popular and widely used Ajax based IRC client and as far as I know the only one of its kind. The only thing remotely close is Chatzilla, which is a browser component. Tothwolf (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The facts that it may be popular or that you consider it to be unique do not imply notability. Non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources does. And I don't believe this article meets that standard. Oren0 (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A7 does indeed apply to this since it is a website. And your attacks against me are irrelevant to the this discussion. Myownusername (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't appear that there is any assertion of notability at all in the text of the article - as someone earlier pointed out, it does read something like an advertisement. Why is it worthy of inclusion? Perhaps it could be improved/rewritten totally to conform to criteria. Martinp23 23:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I considered trying to improve it. However, the fact that the subject is not notable is an irredeemable flaw in this article, so it must be deleted. Myownusername (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it were inherently non-notable, there would be no improvement possible. However the problem stated by Martinp23 is merely that the article doesn't happen to assert its own notability. This is a flaw that can be fixed with editing. See below for additional sources found by Ironholds and Tothwolf that support notability. -moritheilTalk 03:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A7 does certainly not apply., This is a IRC program, not a website. Computer programs are not covered by A7, even though they may use a website as part of their operation. I agree with Tothwolf that the nominator is a transparently clear Single Purpose Account. . DGG (talk) 07:37, 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 speedily deleted as a CSD G3 blatant hoax. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ekafstan

[edit]
Ekafstan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be about a location that doesn't exist; in fact, a simple Google search of the word "ekafstan" comes up with zero hits, not even a possible misspelling. And following the references in the article lead to a site that really isn't about anything (possibly a business?). It also doesn't help that the creator's username happens to be Ekafstan. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep as per consensus and no deletion requests beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth W. Royce

[edit]
Kenneth W. Royce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete because it fails WP:BIO and lacks sources. This does not preclude mention of his name in other articles if appropriate. Bejnar (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEP. This writer is influential in shooting and Libertarian circles. He is also a leader in the Free State Project. His book sales figures alone make him notable. One of his books (Boston's Gun Bible) is presently ranked as follows on Amazon: No. 1 in Books > Professional & Technical > Engineering > Materials > Metallurgy, and No. 2 in Books > Professional & Technical > Law > Criminal Law > Law Enforcement

The book has a 5 star rating, with 105 reviews. This is almost unheard of, once a book has 30 reviews. (Usually at least a few readers see fit to pan most books, and this knocks ratings down to 4 or 4.5 stars.)

Let's add some references and improve this article. The subject is definitely notable. With so many of his books in print, sources should not be too difficult to excavate. Trasel (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep -- Very notable author and well known within Free State Wyoming project. Yaf (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the problem is with the article, not the subject. Royce meets several standards under WP:BIO including the "notable award or honor", "widely recognized contribution", "regarded as an important figure", and "widely cited" clauses, and if nothing else, the "significant 'cult' following" clause. Royce's books have been widely read and discussed. He is a regular guest at political conventions and on radio shows. With appropriate references, there'd be no issue about keeping the article. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- Royce is a widely read and respected libertarian author with at least 5 non-fiction and one fiction title currently available in print and new from amazon.com. Other titles are by the same author are widely available used through amazon.com and other vendors. The author is a primary instigator of the Free State Wyoming political migration project and is a regular guest on radio and at political conventions. The article may certainly benefit by improvement but notability is not at issue. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The article definitely needs improvement but he is certainly a notable and widely read author. Lord Bodak (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- Royce's massive Boston's Gun Bible is a definitive reference. The article under discussion should be retained in Wikipedia and sources should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FredElbel743 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Mr. Royce is well regarded liberatian with 8 books to his credit including You & the Police as well as what has come to be considered a standard work Boston's Gun Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.22.40 (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He's very well known in libertarian, firearm, Free State and some other circles. The last couple of years, I see a trend of marking articles for deletion when they only need improvement. While it's a good evolutionary tactic, I think it's less appropriate for Wikipedia. Tag it for cleanup and improvement instead.Mzmadmike (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been around for years, tagging it for improvement has not seemed to help. --Bejnar (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the problem is not that people don't read his writings, they do. The problem is that none of what you'all say above about him is substantiated. At present there is not a single citation in the article to a reliable published source, or to any source at all! The article cannot stand without sound support. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That would apply to this entire article at present. Please, if you want to save the article from deletion, provide some citation to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. as per WP:BIO. --Bejnar (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article needs references, but the Wiki rule that you cited refers biographies with "contentious material". There is nothing contentious in the article about Royce. Please drop your AfD campaign. Thusfar, you are a chorus of one. Trasel (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote, it is the strength of the arguments that ought to prevail. I have sought reliable citations in published works for the biographical material, and not found them. I honestly believe that while the Boston's Gun Bible might be notable, its author is not. Cites to sources like http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Kenneth-W.-Royce which copy the Wikipedia article do not qualify as legitimate sources. --Bejnar (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Bejnar's comment: "I have sought reliable citations in published works for the biographical material, and not found them. " Well, I don't know where you looked, but I found several references in just a few minutes of Google searches, including a Casper, Wyoming newspaper article.Trasel (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I searched www.casperstartribune.net using "Kenneth W. Royce" and got no hits, do you have a cite? --Bejnar (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The citation you seem unable to find is already listed in the wikipedia article in question. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO states, "This notability guideline for biographies[2] is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed." The consensus, or near consensus anyway, appears to be STRONG KEEP. It may be true it is difficult to find conventional sources that mention Kenneth W. Royce/Boston T. Party, but let's not forget Wikipedia is itself unconventional. Kenneth does have notoriety in any reasonable sense of the word, in many locations on the internet, due to the unusual nature of the subjects on which he has written. -- Paul Bonneau —Preceding undated comment added 06:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I see that the Casper newspaper article "Freedom on the frontier: Gun-toting "Free Staters" make their move into Wyoming" lists him as "Kenneth T. Royce". It says he wrote a novel, once lived in Durango, CO, supports the FSW movement and opposes the FSNH movement. That source appears to be the only independent, reliable, published source for biographical data. Citing to publisher blurbs and Free Stater blogs doesn't cut it. --Bejnar (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have issue with the material and cannot find citations for it, remove it. Turn the article into a stub if that's what it takes (although, as stated above, the uncited material is not contentious). However, the author is notable and deletion is not justified. From WP:BIO 2: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards" and 2.1: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Boston's Gun Bible is widely recognized in the firearms community. Even ignoring all of his other published work, that alone clearly makes the author notable with respect to Wikipedia standards. Lord Bodak (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm confident that Bejnar is well-intentioned and made his nomination in good faith, it is now obvious that the consensus view is that the Royce is indeed notable and that his biography be retained and improved. Bejnar states "...That source appears to be the only independent, reliable, published source for biographical data." Yes, that is true, but it does not detract from the fact that Royce is VERY well known in some circles (shooting, survivalist, and Libertarian). A lack of numerous print references is not at all unusual for biographies of individuals that primarily have a web presence. Simply put: You just won't find a lot of hard copy references to people who primarily have a web presence. This AfD should be dropped. Let's just add more hard copy references, as they become available.. Trasel (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - as I don't know much about American libertarian/pro-gun politics, I'm willing to defer to those who do that this author is highly notable within the field. I must admit the nominator is right though, that this article is very poorly sourced. It seems the problem here is that the only sources that have written about him are, inevitably, fringe ones - there's basically nothing from reliable mainstream sources. On the other hand, I don't have any reason to believe that anything the fringe sources claim about Royce is actually incorrect. On balance I'm leaning keep here, but it's a borderline case, and better sources really need to be found. Robofish (talk) 00:55, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detali Zvuku festival

[edit]
Detali Zvuku festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor music festival, no reliable sources cited, part of a walled garden related to the music label. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 13 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) 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google News and Google Books aren't particularly useful for this kind of thing. I found coverage on Tokfali, a fairly reputable site [56], and it's been mentioned on last.fm and other places. I have no doubt that someone with access to Ukranian sources can cite this article. The festival was an event over multiple years. I think it's clearly notable and if we want to improve it we need to seek out those with access to the sources. I've suggested merging the record label into the same article. Here's a source with an interview on it: [57].ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 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, MBisanz talk 00:00, 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, Jamie☆S93 18:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ChildOfMidnight, but the article needs to be improved significantly. Timmeh! 19:33, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania–Slovenia relations

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

Fails WP:N - no independent sources confirm any sort of a meaningful bilateral relationship. The presence of embassies is already recorded at List of diplomatic missions of Slovenia and List of diplomatic missions of Romania; their membership in NATO at Members of NATO and of the EU at Member State of the European Union. Yes, Sandoz has invested in Romania, but note that its investment is trivial enough not to have been mentioned in the Sandoz article (where it could easily be mentioned, if relevant); and yes, a Slovenian prime minister once spent two days in Romania, but these either fail the "substantial" or the "independent" requirement of WP:GNG. There's certainly not enough of a relationship that we could write about which goes much beyond the trivial. Biruitorul Talk 18:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, while there is obviously a meaningful bilateral relationship but it is impossiblle to confim this from independent sources. Statements by foreign ministers, heads of state, etc, unfortunately cannot be regarded as independent. Wuzziest (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two near-by countries in eastern europe would be expected to have notable relations. Visits by heads of state and the like are what intergovernmental relations are composed of. DGG (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Expecting" sources is not a substitute for actually finding them. Visits are generally of a news/trivial nature - certainly we'd never think of mentioning them outside this series of nonsense articles, for instance in the subjects' biographies. And anyway, the visit I pointed out is from a Romanian government site, and thus fails the "independent" requirement of WP:GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 15:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As most of us very easily were "expecting" sources about two neighboring eastern European countries, only a few seconds g-search brought up many significant secondary sources directly about Romania-Slovenia relations, thus demonstrating handily passing WP:NOTABILITY.
Slovenia to Develop Bilateral Cooperation
Romania, Slovenia sign sea transportation agreement
Dobro sodelovanje z Romunijo (Slovene)
Romunski predsednik v Sloveniji (Slovene)
Romunija lovi EU in upa na izkušnje Slovenije (Slovene)
Minister dr. Rupel sprejel romunskega zunanjega ministra (Slovene)
Romunski zunanji minister danes na obisku v Sloveniji (Slovene) (There's many more)--Oakshade (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously the two countries have an active relationship. I have added content from the sources found by Oakshade to the article, which are sufficient to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait a minute - a "sea transportation agreement"? A visit no one remembers? Let's not prioritize trivia. This stuff would never appear in the subjects' biographies, or anywhere else; it's news, and pretty minor at that. There is no source discussing "Romania–Slovenia relations" as such, and for someone here to try to infer bits of news as being evidence of notability for this topic flies in the face of WP:SYNTH. Without such significant coverage of the relationship, we merely lower our standards to include trivia in this series of nonsense articles. - Biruitorul Talk 06:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relations between two countries consist of official meetings, agreements, disputes, trade and investment. An article on bi-lateral relations should describe this activity, giving sources that verify the accuracy. To people that care about the subject such as businesspeople or diplomats, the events may be far from trivial. The newspapers report these events because they know that some of their readers will be interested - the relations are notable. I prefer to avoid citing "in-depth analysis" papers about the relationship, which will rarely be neutral. Better to just give the facts and let them speak for themselves. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a line between newspaper coverage of daily events that mean nothing from an encyclopedic perspective (state visits, symbolic agreements, and the like) and those that do have some meaning beyond the daily news. As usual, articles like this one choose to prioritize the former, because the latter doesn't really exist. And no thought is given, for instance, to how this might fit into existing article structures - no article could link to this one, could it? - Biruitorul Talk 20:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, meetings between heads of state are more important than cricket matches, which I find extremely boring. But I accept that an article like 1999 Cricket World Cup is valid, because reliable independent sources (daily news stories) discuss each game. I could not imagine that article if it only talked about the broader significance of the tournament and did not mention the individual games and results. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:48, 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 speedy delete. CSD G3. Silly, blatant hoax. Common sense dictates that we delete this article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense Lobe

[edit]
Common Sense Lobe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another offering from Planet Hoax. A Google search show that this term is in use, but in a joking and not a scientific way. Google Scholar finds nothing, and references such as this make clear that the term has no scientific usage, and that all the article's anatomical stuff about "inferior to the lateral fissure and caudal to the central sulcus" is nonsense. The only reference cited is a more or less empty personal website. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta muchly. Must organise my back issues. 195.128.251.188 (talk) 09:07, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hera Pheri 4

[edit]
Hera Pheri 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NFF. No indication that principal photography has commenced. There was initial talk of the film being shot in 2007 but the no development since then on. LeaveSleaves 17:40, 2 May 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 00:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The most recent source I could find was from February 2009, which stated that "something might happen after June" [58]. No basis for an article at this point. PC78 (talk) 11:46, 9 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) 01:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chow Yei-ching

[edit]
Chow Yei-ching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Creator of page in question challenging a WP:PROD in favor of a vote by fellow editors. [email protected] (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would add that I believe the subject is inherently and clearly notable, as an international conglomerateur as well as an awardee of both the Gold Bauhinia Star and the OBE, as well as for the other accomplishments cited in the article. [email protected] (talk) 17:41, 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. Wizardman 15:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or indiscriminate collection of information. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Opening sentence of the article: "Speculation has begun to take shape over potential nominations." Case closed. Keep verifiable speculation on potential nominees' biographical articles until such time a nomination is actually made. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Speculation-based. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing more than speculation from different sites as to who they think could be nominated. TJ Spyke 18:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." It seems there definitely is well documented speculation on potential Supreme Court appointments. Timmeh! 19:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- As Timmeh points out, the first exception to WP:CRYSTAL applies here. This is a notable event for which the speculation is well documented. We're not the ones doing the speculation, the press is. We're just here to document THEIR speculation. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because it is verifiable doesn't imply it is notable enough for encyclopedic coverage. Assert facts, not opinions and substantiate the basis for any claims. There are absolutely no facts to assert but for repetition of biographical details because there has only been speculation by these outlets. There is absolutely no article to write until a nomination is made. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here at all because this article documents an event that has already happened, namely that reliable sources have reported the opinions of experts as to who the likely candidates are. No one is clamoring to delete 2009 NFL season just because we don't know what teams will make the playoffs (although we will surely note when ESPN or SI makes their preseason picks). bd2412 T 21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Per Timmeh and Umbralcorax. Also noting that there are a lot of things in this article that are well-referenced, have already happened and are not WP:CRYSTAL at all - especially President Obama's statements about his judicial nomination philosophy. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, put "President Obama's statements about his judicial nomination philosophy" under Political positions of Barack Obama. This article is nothing but an indiscriminate list of jurists based upon speculation and will have to be completely rewritten anyway the moment a nomination is announced. Moreover, this article is currently a link farm of idle speculation with no substantive, reliable, or authoritative facts. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, it's much to long to shoehorn into the existing "political positions" article. Second, it will not have to be "completely rewritten" when a nomination is announced. Some nominations fail (see Robert Bork) or are withdrawn (see Harriet Miers). Furthermore, even after Obama leaves office, it will still be a reliably sourced fact that the current list captures the collection of people that many experts on the subject thought likely to be considered for the Court - see George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates for comparison. bd2412 T 01:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Per Timmeh. Gage (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Why do some people keep missing the distinction here? As the first AfD noted, this is a sourced article *about* speculation. Speculation by a random Wikipedia editor? Bad. Speculation by the Washington Post? Fine. SnowFire (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keep comments above. Some confusion about the scope and nature of the article may be a result of its name, although I can't quickly think of a better one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well documented with reliable sources. At this point we should be talking about fixing and updating the article not deletion. --Jmundo 02:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article does not meet the deletion standards of WP:CRYSTAL as pointed out by several editors. Well-sourced articles around speculation for an impending event clears the bar. JakeZ (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, per "keep" comments above. Additionally, the nomination for deletion itself seems to concede that speculation in the current article would be warranted the "time a nomination is actually made." That event is imminent. Souter has announced his retirement and the White House has announced plans to nominate someone in time for confirmation by the start of the next Supreme Court term. An official short list is floating around and journalists have their sources. We're past the point of idle speculation. Billyboy01 (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice for recreation when needed. Wikipedia should take a historical perspective when writing articles. Until Obama actually nominates someone for the Court, this article is about media speculation. It's a news story, not a topic for an encyclopedia. WP:NOTNEWS. -Atmoz (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The speculation here is well sourced to political commentators. WP:CRYSTAL applies to speculation coming from crystal balls (i.e. made-up speculation without any root), not to well-reasoned speculation found in reliable sources. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not really an article about future events (who will be the Supreme Court nominee), but about present events (who the press thinks is eligible to be appointed). Mike Serfas (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now that Justice David Souter has announced his retirement, the possibility that Barack Obama will appoint a Supreme Court Justice has become a reality and a current ongoing event permissable for coverage on Wikipedia just like the similar article covering George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates. --TommyBoy (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, and the sooner the better. It's hard to believe there's even a discussion about it, much less that it wasn't deleted immediately. This entry is purely newspaper/magazine quality - what amounts to nothing more than media speculation. Even then it's of only middling quality, but its quality as a news media story is irrelevant for the purposes of an encyclopedia. Its encyclopedic relevance is already dated and will become more so each day. It could not be more inappropriate for Wikipedia. Maybe Wikinews, if there is such a thing - and even that would be just more of what every news media outlet in the country is already doing. Again, I have to wonder why the editors haven't deleted it already. Wlegro (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This does not qualify under WP:CRYSTAL because this is not about speculation over whether there will be a Supreme Court nomination, this is an article covering the nomination process that is currently beginning and the candidates involved. It should be renamed, however, possibly to List of Candidates Suggested to Replace David Souter in the United States Supreme Court. Eauhomme (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that WP:CRYSTAL does apply (it is still speculative whether Obama will actually nominate a new justice, it's just incredibly likely). Keep per User:Timmeh above. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on WP:NOTNEWS grounds. In 10 years this article will not mean very much, except for documenting a certain way that things were in 2009. That's a good definition of news to me. Gigs (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with User:TommyBoy, this article should be dealt with like George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates. --bender235 (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strongly. I'm regularly surprised how few people understand what CRYSTAL means -- it certainly does *not* mean we shouldn't write about future events. —Nightstallion 16:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strongly:This article documents an important process in American government: the appointment of a Supreme Court justice. As the Supreme Court of the United States is the final arbiter of many of the finer points of American law, to ignore the process of choosing its individual members seems myopic. By comparing the various articles on Supreme Court appointments (George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates, Bill Clinton Supreme Court candidates, etc.), an interested student can see how the process proceeds through the politics of each generation. This is history, not just current events. BoBo (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, when the entire appointment process is completed, it will have documented the event. --DangApricot (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into article about the confirmation process of the eventual nominee after he or she is named.Bigturtle (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if there are multiple nominees or later vacancies? In any event, the extensive documentation of all the prospective candidates who don't make it will be rather out of place in an article on the one that does. Also, this article is one in a well-developed series. bd2412 T 04:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: I fail to see how this article can be deleted on the basis of speculation as it merely lists the candidates for President Obama to choose from. Speculation argument would be fitted if this article said for certain which person would fill Soulter's seat... (Tigerghost (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • You're asserting a distinction without a difference. There has been no authoritative, reliable facts released about any candidate. This article only exists to speculate on "which person [will] fill [Souter]'s seat". Madcoverboy (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But not for us to speculate. Speculation is being carried out by experts in the field, and we merely report on what they think. bd2412 T 19:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
        • The article isn't even reporting on what these "experts" think, it's just a place-holder link farm of American jurists and citations to various sources. Thus, the article serves no actual purpose but serving as a collection of speculation. Based upon every precedent article (e.g., George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates), there is (rightfully) absolutely no discussion of the speculation (journalistic, scholarly, or otherwise) leading up to the nomination itself. This article is a completely inappropriate collection of speculation without any substantiable factual basis which perfectly fulfills WP:CRYSTAL which so many users seem to misinterpret. Until such time a nomination is officially announced, there can be no notable, reliable, or verifiable basis to justify this article. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Further precedent: Primary campaign article created February 2, 2007 only after official announcement; Presidential campaign article created June 10, 2008 only after presumptive clinching of nomination. There was a frenzy of media speculation before each data and Wikipedia rightfully did not indulge in it no matter how pervasive this "verifiable" this speculation (thus, necessarily unreliable) was. Why is it so controversial to wait until the nomination is actually made to write this article instead of emulating the baseless media-frenzy of speculation? Madcoverboy (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (de-indent) Except that's not what happened at all. The Presidential campaign article was a split for length purposes; the "primary campaign" article was moved as before it had covered both the primary and the general campaign for Obama (and yes, it was covering Obama's strategy for the general even then). And Obama was mentioned as a possible candidate in a list in the main 2008 Presidential campaign article before he declared; see this revision from 7 days after the 2004 election. To compare apples to apples, you are basically asking to delete that list from the old 2008 campaign article if it'd been split off as its own page. (Amusingly enough, that old list is barely referenced, which would be a problem, though Obama's entry is referenced- as him not being interested! This list IS referenced, so whatever.) SnowFire (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Addendum: A better analogy for your "The Obama campaign article was only split out when it became official!" example would be someone making an article "Nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court." That WOULD be premature until she's officially nominated.) SnowFire (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't refuted anything. The article histories plainly show that no article about Barack Obama's presidential actions predated the official announcement of his candidacy. Likewise, you ignored my other argument that no other article about previous Presidents' nominations has such a mindless laundry list of speculation. Nor does this article even attempt to explain the cited justifications for why any one of these speculative nominees is "in the running". I see no reason why a different standard should suddenly hold now in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:IINFO as well as WP:RS. Amusingly enough, the example revision you cite asserting that Obama will not be entering the 2008 race is precisely the reason why Wikipedia should not indulge in the mindless and unsubstantiable speculation of the rest of the equally-uninformed political press. But to answer your rhetorical question about such a scenario: yes, I would have nominated the hypothetically spun-out article about 2008 candidates for deletion back in 2004.
Likewise, that United States presidential election, 2012 contains a list of speculative candidates does not particularly concern me since the event itself is historically well-demarcated and stable with regards to dates, nominating processes, precedents, electoral college makeup, political parties, etc. There are no such assurances or procedural stability with a Supreme Court candidate nomination: no dates have been set for announcements, there are no certanties with regard to filling the spot, and of course the confirmation process is almost sure to be a rollercoaster with constituencies to be satisficed, surprises in vetting, partisan defections & blocs, legislative maneuvering, etc. There can be no encyclopedia article written about a topic which not only has not occurred but has not even a presumption of well-defined boundaries that can be outlined in advance. If Obama nominates tomorrow, then all my objections are moot. Otherwise, take this embarassment down. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you not seen George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates? Other articles in the series are less developed in this regard because the information is less well preserved. bd2412 T 02:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a different between having an indiscriminate list citing baseless speculation and a coherent article describing a historical occurrence. To fulfill WP:CRYSTAL, this article would need to at a minimum use reliable sources to outline the "prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur". There are no such prospects at this juncture because there has not even been a nomination. Here's another guideline quote for the closing admin to chew over from WP:RS: "While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." There is nothing to verify but for the fact that political pundits are speculating. Let the political pundit spout their gossip, rumours, and speculation elsewhere: we are an encyclopedia that privileges reliable and verifiable information. This article will be written in the future, but it is far too premature and entirely inappropriate at this stage. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the points you raise are strong arguments for why this article needs to be cleaned up, but just because you toss in some superlatives does not make your case for deletion any stronger. If a particular reference is truly "baseless speculation" then it should be removed. But some of the references are news reports from reliable media outlets where journalists (not merely pundits) have reported names that have originated with the White House. Kagan, Wood, Sotomayor, Sullivan, Wardlaw, Ward Sears and a few others have been floated by knowledgeable sources and are genuine BHO Supreme Court candidates. This will still have been true even if Obama completes his presidency w/o actually nominating anyone. That said, some of the names in the article clearly don't belong on the list. The references listed for Revesz, Klobuchar, and Minow, for example, seem to be unsourced speculation. And Gregoire's "reference" is a reader comment on a webpage. Those and similarly unsourced names should be purged, but that's hardly a justification for temporarily deleting the whole page. Billyboy01 (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JakeZ, it is not crystal, it has begun already and the article will be updated accordinly as it continues. - Epson291 (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep, part of the historic record. Neutralitytalk 08:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep. As you can see from the history of the [George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates] article, it began in 2004 before there was even an open seat on the Court, as a listing of potential candidates to such a seat. That list of potential candidates has been retained in the most recent version of the article, in order provide a historical record of who was previously under consideration. Such lists are very useful for researchers; for example, someone writing about the representation of women among possible nominees by George H.W. Bush versus his son George W. would find such lists invaluable, even though both presidents ultimately had only male judges confirmed for the Court. Or for a debate occurring right now about whether only women candidates for the Court are having their weight assessed with regard to their longevity: a list of possible nominees from George W. would provide a starting point to know who those were and then to compare whether overweight male candidate received similar media treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.221.86 (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, per Timmeh, Umbralcorax and others. Krakatoa (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, per Timmeh and the WP:CRYSTAL page. It is also worth considering that the Obama administration itself has started vetting particular candidates; he has a positive shortlist. This article is not indiscriminate or primary speculation, just current event coverage. -- The_socialist talk? 09:42, 9 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carré d'As IV

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Carré d'As IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although I do not believe the article breaks any guideline or policy I am concerned that the ship has no notability outside the context of its hijacking and recapture. Since that is covered in its own article, September 16, 2008 incident off Somalia, I do not believe a separate article for the ship is warranted. Unlike many other ships hijacked by Somali pirates, which have their own articles, this boat is a small private yacht that takes about 2 people. I would like to refer to a recent AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanit (yacht). Similar type of boat, same claim to notability, and with an article already covering what the boat was notable for. The result of that AFD concluded that the ship was not notable enough for its own article (it was the process of merging that led me to the Carré d'As IV article). Plus, the information on the article is a duplication of information found on the action article, so the ship article offers nothing new that the action article doesn't. Cordovao (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This yacht is as notable as MY Le Ponant, another French yacht which was hijacked by Somali pirates and in which French forces intervened. I suspect someone does not want it known that private yachts are being attacked and captured by pirates. The naming convention mentioned above is awkward, and probably should be changed, as it makes searching for the incident difficult. There is no rule stating that there can not be two articles mentioning the same subject, and as mentioned above, the article does not break any guideline or policy. Pustelnik (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the scale of MY Le Ponant (a 67 passenger, 32 cabin, commercial boat) is sufficiently big for enough notability for its own article, compared to the 2 people private yacht. "There is no rule stating that there can not be two articles mentioning the same subject"; I think common sense is enough. As for the naming convention of the action article, I do not see how that is relevant to this discussion. Plus, the article on the yacht can always be redirected to the article on the action. The article on the yacht does not indeed break any guidelines or policies, but like the article on the Tanit that was recently merged the Carré d'As IV has no notability outside of the events of September 16. Regarding "I suspect someone does not want it known that private yachts are being attacked and captured by pirates", it is because an article is devoted to just that that I do not believe that the article on the yacht is necessary, especially when the yacht article says nothing about the yacht outside the context of the action, and everything on the article is repeated on the action article. In my opinion, the article on the yacht isn't warranted or necessary. Cordovao (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The yacht is notable as it has been hijacked. The name of the article is in accordance with other sailing ship articles - just the name, disambig by type if necessary. There are literally thousands of yachts worldwide, the vast majority of which will not be notable in WP terms but this is an exception. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Are the Achille Lauro and the Maersk Alabama notable other than through being hijacked? Other than in record books, do size and notability go hand in hand? Presumably, either the hijackings will go on, gradually removing notability from the action, or something will be done to stop them, which will introduce the Barbary factor. Barbary corsairs are remembered as a defunct body. Who remembers their victims? Peridon (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Achille Lauro was a cruise ship, and the Maersk Alabama is a major container ship. I think that makes them notable apart from involvement with pirates. However, I do see your point, but whatever the line between size and notability I do not think a 2 person yacht is independently notable. I don't think the actions themselves will become unnotable; Notability is not temporary. What made them notable now should make them notable in however many years. Cordovao (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point about the Barbary factor... Peridon (talk) 19:25, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flambish

[edit]
Flambish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be original research. It originally had a {{prod}} tag, but the creator removed it without actually improving the article (s/he explained the reasoning on the talk page, but it appears s/he doesn't understand WP:N). Google came up with no sources that "flambish" is related to the word "flam" or that it is a word at all, even in Norwegian. And when I Googled "flambish" and "flam" together, it came back with a single hit, which doesn't even mention the two words in the same context. In addition, the two apparent references in the article link to the same page, which doesn't mention "flambish" at all. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:01, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jackofficers

[edit]
The Jackofficers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article concerns what appears to be a non notable rock band that lasted less than a year, having merely toured a few clubs. No reference to any records or albums released or even a record contract with a notable (or any) record label. HJMitchell You rang? 16:40, 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. Speedy closing this. This article is totally unsourced, based on false assumptions and misunderstandings surrounding a controversial issue. There is no need to keep this open. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Black Woman Syndrome

[edit]
Missing Black Woman Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although there may be some merit to this article, it's pretty much a non-notable essay. In addition, a Google search comes back with only eight hits, all of which are from either blogs or Yahoo! Answers. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:34, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Web Editor

[edit]
Easy Web Editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


Contested prod. Article is about non-notable software, with no reliable sources provided and none found. Only info I could find was mirrored download sites. TNXMan 16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for helping me improving. I added the reason that I believe makes this editor noticeable: it was the first editor with visual linking and visual editing (I am a longtime fan and I use it from the very beginning, and nothing else was available at that time. Unfortunately it was born in Italy, where there is not Venture Capital or so... It's always the same story - maybe you know that the telephone was invented by the Italian Meucci, who did not have the money... then Bell with $ $ started the business... ). --Zioziozio (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC) — Zioziozio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hum I contest so. As for the information and new references that Zioziozio recently added, it is historically the first visual web editor, at least the only one with verifiable information, within the Politecnico di Torino archives and ED-Media archives. I propose to keep the article and to remove the external links that could be promo. --Tutankamoon (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC) — Tutankamoon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thank you very much Tutankamon, as you noticed I added references, and now I have removed most external links, I just left one (but maybe it is needed to remove it? please help!). Probably it was my fault: I am not a wiki expert and I did not intend to promote anything, I simply used another software page as template as I do not remember all these wiki codes, and I just changed the links, from the other one to this (it seems that somebody has the right to add links, and somebody else not, but well I realize they are probably overwhelmed by bad attempts and the first reaction for a new article with links probably is the "delete" button...). It's really a pity because if a valuable information about the Web history is not on a Web encyclopedia, it will be probably lost. I am not a "power" user so I believe there is a little else I can do. --Zioziozio (talk) 17:13, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of Flandrensis

[edit]
Grand Duchy of Flandrensis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:07, 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. One (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo – Panama relations

[edit]
Kosovo – Panama relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

any useful information should be in Foreign relations of Kosovo. no evidence of notable relations otherwise. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then put it there. You don't need an AFD to merge material. That's what WP:MRFD is for. (It's even against policy to move text and delete the originating page - WP:MAD)- Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France–Kosovo relations is a pretty poor argument as that article is still unreferenced and unsourced, still does nothing to assert notability, and was closed not as keep, but as no consensus. You have a week to make anything out of this one, and it should be better than that. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--BlueSquadronRaven 21:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, which is why there isn't much in the article at the moment. Bazonka (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep Panama is a legitimate county which recognises and has diplomatic relations with the relations with the Republic of Kosovo. So Keep, this article is a stub. No need for deletion. Ijanderson (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A great deal of deleted articles of this type has already shown that the mere existence of relations between two "legitimate" countries does not in and of itself satisfy notability. There needs to be more to it than that. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment by User:Ijanderson977 was solicited by User:Turkish Flame as shown here. [65] --BlueSquadronRaven 23:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that relevant? Ijanderson wasn't necessarily going to agree with Turkish Flame. Bazonka (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ijanderson977, are you familiar with the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG? - Biruitorul Talk 00:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Jtrainor (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not inherently notable, at least 40 of these X-Y articles have been deleted in recent weeks. LibStar (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt just noting that a little canvassing has been going on here. i.e. of alchemia [66] ijanderson1977 [67] and a few others who haven't (so far) chimed in here.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're grasping at straws. One of the countries has only existed for a year. There is no argument for "ongoing coverage" here, especially as the one reference in the article is from four months ago and is basically only the start of relations. Fails WP:N and WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:N, no reason to not treat this as a regular article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 May 2009
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia–Uruguay relations

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

another random combination with no notable relations. non resident embassies. Even the Serbian govt says Economic cooperation between the two countries is insufficiently developed! LibStar (talk) 15:50, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The King's Christian School

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
The King's Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable private school. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:47, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta–New Zealand relations

[edit]
Malta–New Zealand relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination. non resident embassies. even the NZ govt describes this relationship as warm and based on our islands status! [72] LibStar (talk) 15:43, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Speed Gamers

[edit]
The Speed Gamers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn website. Losr2300 (talk) 15:33, 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 speedy delete. Already deleted by User:Closedmouth per WP:CSD#G4 — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proud (John Stanley play)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Proud (John Stanley play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreation of a previously deleted article. Still does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Brianga (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Also tagged for speedy deletion reason G4. It's been a few months since the last AFD but the article hasn't improved much even after the play has premiered. Creator has also been reported for a username violation (promotional username).--RadioFan (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article for deletion / PROUD actually contains several third party references including Whatsonstage, QX Magazine, The Stage and even links to direct PROUD references already cited on Wikipedia. The article was originally deleted on the grounds that there was not enough third party citation. Now that the article has been revised with the said citations I am curious what grounds the article is NOW being considered for deletion?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifugum

[edit]
Lucifugum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Basically fails WP:MUSIC. There is a vague claim to notability (described as "a cult name in Ukrainian black metal" by Rockdetector) but that's nowhere near enough. One of their albums was re-released by the borderline notable Drakkar, but mostly their material is released through Propaganda which is a) definitely non-notable, and b) owned by the band. No significant third-party coverage; the only sources I could see were not reliable and hosted by the Propaganda website or another label that has released their records. Article has also been heavily edited by single purpose users that, whilst I'm assuming good faith, I expect to comment here. Happy to retract nom if non-trivial sources found, for instance, in Russian (a real possibility, though I tragically cannot read Russian). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I created this article around a year ago, according to Wikipedia Rule #5 of Criteria for musicians and ensembles:

"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)". Lucifugum released 2 albums on major labels (Drakkar and Adipocere/Oaken Shield) and 2 albums on BlackMetal.Com, big indie label with many years history and many releases: http://www.blackmetal.com Resume: 4 albums on labels which correspond respective Wikipedia rules. Lucifugum article is in law. PLEASE REMOVE THIS DELITIION NOTE. p.s. If you're disagree with this: "a cult name in Ukrainian black metal", you can simply remove these words, but NOT the whole article. Lucifugum is a very notable band with many years history and many albums. --Black pauk1488 (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)— Black pauk1488 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment I think then that the discussion has to revolve around whether any of those record labels are in fact notable enough to satisfy criterion 5 of WP:MUSIC. None of them are in fact major labels, they're all indies. Drakkar Productions I suspect to be notable enough for Wikipedia standards. Oaken Shield is more dubious... Adipocere may just scrape notability, but Oaken Shield is in fact a sublabel that almost certainly wouldn't (I'm not sure what policy is concerning sublabels). Blackmetal.com fails roster criterion of "most [acts] are notable" by a country mile. I reiterate that no sources independent of the band (apart from the Rockdetector one that I added) have been provided to establish any other notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... I agree with the nominator. The article has been tagged for forever (and those tags were even fought over) and it has not improved. The only source, Rockdetector, does not have enough credibility to sustain the claims made (and I just did another search, which came up with nothing), and while the editors keep telling everyone that we just don't know the scene there and they do (see the article's talk page), there is no evidence of that whatsoever. So it boils down to the records and the labels, and I agree with nominator that their notability falls on the other side of the notability guideline. BTW, that talk page does make for interesting reading. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, guys! I've made some changes on Lucifugum page. I deleted bio and emotions (cult and bla-bla-bla). There is just line-up and discography there. Just official data. Line-up everybody can see on official releases. These releases everybody can find/buy in many distros all over the world. --Black pauk1488 (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete I've added bio but without "cult status" claims. I suppose now everything's alright with this page.

--Black pauk1488 (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The SPA Black pauk1488 has removed the AfD notice (this is the second time this has happened). They have also "improved" the article by removing the only reliable source that was present in the article. Finally, in edit summaries, they repeat the inaccurate assertion that any of the labels to have released Lucifugum records are major labels; I suspect that they believe the phrase "major label" means that they are important. It does not. All are small independents. The repeated removal of AfD tags, and in the past notability and unreferenced tags, on this article is becoming a little disruptive. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Also, please do not !vote more than once. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Blackmetalbaz, you created the page for Diaboli. 1. This band is not more important and not more known than Lucifugum. 2. Notability of Diaboli has been established just by band bio, (written by band directrly, NOT by reliable source) and by Rockdetector. In this case I ask you: why do these sources ok for Diaboli and not ok for Lucifugum? Why do interview for a very small and very unknown label Sund and Moon is a reference for Diaboli? Why do Lucifugum interviews and Rockdetector bio not ok for Lucifugum page? 3. The situation with labels who released Diaboli albums is the same as with Lucifugum: just indie labels released Diaboli, NOT major. So I ask again: why do you want so much to delete Lucifugum page, if Diaboli page, made by you, the same “not reliable”? It’s not fair. Lucifugum is a very notable band, I insist, this page must be saved. Deletion = crime. --Black pauk1488 (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I have replied to you specifically on your talk page. This comment is irrelevant to this AfD; please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:36, 9 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 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian influence operations in Estonia

[edit]
Russian influence operations in Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is in breach of WP:POVFORK, because it discusses one aspect of Estonia-Russia relations without providing any context or contrasting views. It is also in breach of WP:SYNTH: the article puts different events under the title "Russian influence operations in Estonia," although there is no evidence that the events are part of any such "influence operations." Third, I'd like to point out that there are no similar articles in Wikipedia; there is no American influence operations in Europe or American influence operations in (name your country). Speculating whether this or that event is actually part of "influence operations" by another country is a popular subject in political journals. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a journal. It should not have articles about pure political speculation. Offliner (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, the Estonian KGB feeding this information to the media, does not make a subject notable, and dare I say it, is actually an example of WP:NOTADVOCATE. In much the same way that we would not create an article on Glorification of it's Nazi past by Estonia, based upon information fed to the media by the FSB; and I would say that would be a much more notable topic. It is much better to have this article within the Estonia-Russia relations article whereby it is given context of their overall relationship; Estonia-Russia relations is not bursting at the seams by any stretch of the imagination, so there is no need for a WP:POVFORK/WP:CFORK such as this. --Russavia Dialogue 01:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Factual correction: the so-called "Estonian KGB" (actually a local branch of KGB) ceased to exist when the Soviet Union went belly-up almost two decades ago. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Martintg, please mate, lose the hard on, there's no reason we can't be jovial, is there? --Russavia Dialogue 01:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly protest Russavia's remark, which not only displays his customary incivility, but can also be seen as a form of sexual harassment. (This isn't the first time, either: see [74], where just the other day Russavia referred to Martintg as "our resident Tasmanian Estophile" in the same line as a reference to "two headed Tasmanian fellatio".) Such inappropriate language has no place here. Please review WP:CIV and WP:NPA, and help keep a productive editing environment. - Biruitorul Talk 18:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this means "keep" and then discuss merging of the content?Biophys (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a properly sourced article on an important topic on the Northeastern European international politics. I can not support any renaming at this time, as my concerns regarding potential confusion (see above) have not been answered. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You say it is fully sourced, yet you keep removing fact tags placed by another editor and you call it disruption in the edit summary. So no, the article is not properly sourced. --Russavia Dialogue 12:02, 9 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) 01:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robley Rex

[edit]
Robley Rex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm nominating this article as I don't believe that Rex is notable for anything other than having been one of the longest surviving WWI vets, now he has passed away, surely he is no longer notable for this? I realise that nominating a recently deceased man may seem a little cold, but even his volunteer work, while commendable, is hardly notable. Fol de rol troll (talk) 14:15, 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 redirect to -cide. Stifle (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"-cides"

[edit]
Look up -cide#Derived terms or Words derived from "-cide" in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
AfDs for this article:
"-cides" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page is a list of words ending in -cide. Apart from the fact that wikipedia is not a dictionary, the only references are the main page of Wikipedia and a website called fun-with-words. PROD tag was removed on the basis that the creator thought that the page should be moved to a different name (I am not sure about the reasoning behind that either). God Emperor (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the following article, which is an identical copy of "-cides", to the discussion.

List of -cide words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--bonadea contributions talk 14:29, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal death metal

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Brutal death metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article previously deleted. Basically nominating for the same reasons as the "melodic black metal" article that was recently deleted. The word "brutal" is frequently used as a descriptor in death metal, as a swift Google will amply demonstrate. However, there are no reliable sources at all to suggest that "brutal death metal" exists as a separate and distinct subgenre. The Purcell cite that was used in the introduction didn't back up the claims being made by the article, and what remains is purely OR synthesis. The most you can say about this supposed subgenre genre is that it is death metal which some consider quite "brutal", which is crap even as a dicdef. There's nothing worth merging either, as once you remove the OR, all you're left with is a POV, unsourced list of bands. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Death metal is, by default, brutal. Chad Bowar of About.com describes death metal as, "in one word, brutal." Purcell, in her book at p. 16: "In any discussion of Death Metal, one will encounter the term "brutal"." At no point in the book is there any indication that there's a subgenre of death metal known as brutal death metal. Melodic death metal is a legitimate subgenre in contrast precisely because it discards the characteristic brutality of death metal for something more melodic. Purcell (who uses the term Swedish Death Metal instead of melodic) states as much at p. 23: "this new movement emphasizes the harmonies and melodic aspects of traditional metal, rather than the chaotic and brutal sounds of much Death Metal." Consequently, critics and fans commonly use the word brutal as an adjective to distinguish death metal bands from this more popular melodic variety. As a subgenre though, brutal death metal has as much legitimacy as say, "fast speed metal", "melodic glam metal" or, as one editor remarked in the previous AFD, "mellow easy listening". --Bardin (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UGH. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:25, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie goes to candy mountain

[edit]
Charlie goes to candy mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This YouTube-based cartoon short is supposedly very popular, according to the article. Yet Google searches fail to confirm this claim. The article does not meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Hang on, but how come you guys consider it acceptable to have a whole article on EVERY Simpsons or south park episode, despite the fact that some of them may not have 30,000,000 views? Or the stub on the Prime Minster of Lichtenstien, Klaus Tshutscher, despite the fact that 30,000,000 people cannot have heard of him? And anyway, why is it that, while harmless cartoons like Pokemon or Charlie the Unicorn get their articles deleted, more obscene articles- such as "Penis"- are hundreds if not thousands of words long

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Coshocton Redskins football team

[edit]
2007 Coshocton Redskins football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable high school football team. No references support notability. The following similar article is also part of this nomination:

2008 Coshocton Redskins football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:58, 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. Wizardman 04:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

[edit]
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list serves no encyclopedic purpose. It's instead a propoganda tool (and wikipedia is not for advertisement), giving a list solely of people who uphold the fringe minority side of the debate, giving it undue weight. Furthermore, each entry is given a quotes advocating the fringe point of view, making the POV and advocacy issues even worse.

I can see no encyclopedic purpose; instead, it serves as a propoganda device. These lists are common practice of fringe views, but normally, we cover the more notable lists hosted off-wikipedia in an encyclopedic manner (e.g. A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism) instead of hosting such lists ourselves.

This may be appropriate fodder for a category, but this list is fatally flawed, and must be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Obviously not an advertisement. Documentation in reliable sources is not a problem. Scientific dissent among respected scientists is not what WP:FRINGE is talking about. Within the context of the article title, it appears to be NPOV, but even if it weren't, that wouldn't be a reason to delete. Your reasons for deletion seem to boil down to "I don't like it." Gigs (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Previously nominated twice afd1 afd2, last time was a WP:SNOW Speedy Keep. Gigs (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is opposition to Global Warming a minority viewpoint? Absolutely. Is it a Fringe viewpoint? No. And even if it was, WP:FRINGE allows for discussion of notable Fringe viewpoints, for which this clearly qualifies. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Describing this article as 'propaganda' is incorrect. Gigs and Blueboar both spell out reasons to Keep, as do several other editors in the previous 2 Afds. Edward321 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would have thought people might have taken a hint from no less than 2 previous AfDs but evidently not. The information is noteworthy and interesting and deserves a place in an encyclopaedia. HJMitchell You rang? 14:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is clear WP:UNDUE and is of dubious value to the project and dubious encyclopaedic value. Does seem to violate WP:SOAP. Should be deleted and a list of the notable proponets added to the parent article or a template, supported by WP:RS. This also has WP:CFORK issues, etc. Very problematic WP:FRINGE "article". Verbal chat 14:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As stated by User:Blueboar, scientific opposition to the theory is clearly a minority view point, but questioning this theory is well within normal scientific discourse, especially for a topic as complex as global warming. Hence this subject is not WP:FRINGE. Concerning WP:CFORK issues, the parent global warming article is already very long (96 kilobytes) which according to WP:SPLIT is already to the point where it "almost certainly should be divided". Boghog2 (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We could probably make a sizable list of "People who believed the world is flat", but that doesn't make it an endorsement of any kind. We have a category called Holocaust deniers, it's not giving "undue weight". Joker1189 (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as Blueboar says, we can discuss and document fringe views without giving them undue weight; and this is a pretty significant fringe view (in the sense of political impact, news coverage and so on). I think the lede needs to give a clearer indication of how small a minority these people are though: at present a reader could easily think people with these views made up, say 30%, of 'scientists' or scientists in the field. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Although it is well-defined, is there a particular reason to have a list of scientists who disagree with the 2001 IPCC report? Do we normally list scientists who disagree with international reports? There's nothing wrong with supporters of fringe views being listed, e.g. List of homeopaths, but disagreeing on at least one point with the IPCC report is not a coherent grouping - unless you're aiming to criticise the IPCC report. If this page is kept, because the fact of them being a published scientist is being used as a stamp of authority - although many are speaking outside of their fields - we should list the other fringe theories that these individuals believe on this page to give a background of their thinking, e.g. Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas and Timothy Ball believe there is no connection between CFCs and ozone loss, Ian Plimer believes that El Niño is caused by earthquakes and volcanic activity at the mid-ocean ridges. We should also list their conflicts of interest, such as industry funding. Oh, and we should have a list of scientists supporting the global warming consensus, for balance. Fences and windows (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just add a section in this article which puts it in context, showing that the few dozen individuals in this list are not significant compared to the numerous scientific organizations around the world who constitute the consensus (Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change ). That way this article won't give undue weight or be useful for propagandizing. It might even diminish the case for denial of anthropogenic global warming by showing how little support there actually is for it. Rotiro (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a topic of immense public interest and debate and WP is providing a valuable public service by organizing information about the dissenting views in an objective and neutral way. Mrhsj (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not as worried about this article as the nominator, but I also don't see why Wikipedia should assemble an original list of dissenters rather than reporting on existing ones. We all know the entire purpose of collecting dissenters is to make a controversy seem larger than it really is. You could counteract this propaganda by giving the necessary context as Rotiro suggests, but what possible encyclopedic value does an indiscriminate listing of scientists opposing the consensus have in the first place? It makes much more sense to let partisan groups assemble these lists, which they constantly do, and report on them as neutrally as possible rather than taking active part in teaching the controversy ourselves. Vesal (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... well referenced, is needed to avoid bogging down the main article and give these names undue weight. Calwatch (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was originally created by User:Dragons flight in 2005.[75] So whether the article serves as a propaganda tool for the minority viewpoint, it certainly wasn't created for that purpose. Non-supporters of the IPCC should not be characterized as fringe, as defined on Wikipedia. They are a very-small minority, mostly from specialties outside of climatology. The list does not give undue weight; there are many articles on global warming, the existence of this one cannot giving undue weight without researching the weight given in all the others. It's better to have a centralized list than to have this information inserted in other articles. There is some truth in the statement that editors compiling this list is original research. And that the inclusion criteria are arbitrary. It would be much better if we had an article that documented opposing views that have been covered by reliable, third-party sources. -Atmoz (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the global warming coverage is very strong elsewhere, and there is certainly no deliberate soapboxing going on here. However, I worry that Wikipedia is seen as endorsing the view that polling individual scientists is at all meaningful. The problem is that lists like these are part of the underlying debate: one side consider these lists to be fundamentally flawed (a more meaningful thing would be "List of papers in high-impact journals disputing the mainstream assessment on Global Warming"), while the other side assembles lists like these and publish them to show there is controversy. Therefore, when Wikipedia also publishes such a list, it is implicitly siding with the group that says polling of scientists (rather than all other means of gauging scientific consensus) is a meaningful thing to do. If this list was transformed into an article covering the opposition, their strategies, organization, as well as their main arguments, it would all be totally fine. Vesal (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "This was originally created by User:Dragons flight in 2005.[1] So whether the article serves as a propaganda tool for the minority viewpoint, it certainly wasn't created for that purpose." - With all due respect, this article is NOT being used as a propaganda tool by the minority. It is quite the reverse. The criteria of this article have been intentionally scoped (in my opinion) to exclude as many people as possible and I would not be at all surprised to learn that those criteria have been adjusted over time, as needed, by the controlling majority so as to maintain the perception that the list of people opposing the maintstream view is as small as possible. I find it interesting that wikiedpia user WMC sought to have a similar list (but listing those who actually supported the controlling majority's viewpoint) deleted on the grounds that it was inevitably going to be incomplete and unmaintainable. The same argument is being made here but I doubt that it will gain any traction with the AGW regulars. That having been said the article does contain useful information for those who are interested in the topic area, and I take no particular position on whether it should be deleted, or not, and defer to the collective wisdom of the community on that point. --GoRight (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The article is about opposition to the mainstream view, rather than the scientists making the statements. That article title should reflect that. The view is sufficiently non-fringe to give it its own article rather than just a section in another article. - Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rearrange - Expand The notion that CO2 would heat the world is falsified in multiple ways, and "Fringe Theory" is that human politicians could control the climate (if they only were given the funds). That in the meantime governments all around the globe fund entire scientific communities for tooting the claim of "global warming endangering mankind" (and bearkind maybe) does not change this fact. Given this point the list needs to be re-arranged and extended. There are a number of theoretical or atmospheric physicists who present disproof of the core of the dogma which is the claimed CO2->temperature relationship. This category needs to be included and should be put on the top, since it is the most challenging scientific position for the dogma. Another category has to be included for those who challenge or disprove the claim of the "low atmospheric CO2 in the pre-industrial age" or the value of icecore measurements. Finally, if the list is kept, it needs to be vastly expanded since against myth, there are not only a few scientists who oppose global warming phantasies but thousands of them. --84.56.38.251 (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 84.56.38.251 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete -- Not an article, just an a list, and presentation of it is an extreme violation of NPOV's WP:UNDUE weight clause, as it shows a list of alleged scientists, most without real credentials or in unrelated fields, and tries to advance an agenda by spearating it from a list of scientist who support the existence of global warning. It's nothing but a POV fork. DreamGuy (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Not an article, just a list" is no reason to delete, and I suggest you read over WP:LIST. Wikipedia has tens if not hundreds of thousands of "list of ..." articles and they're widely deemed acceptable. Oren0 (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand the problems associated with a page such as this but I do not think that this is a reason to delete it. I agree with fences and windows that it would be a good idea to list what other theories they also support so that readers can make up their own minds as to whether they wish to believe these people's views. Fences and windows also suggests creating a list of those in support of the assessment but as we all know it wouldn't fit on a 100kb page! I think that it is dangerous to censor such information - if it is all in one place and each viewpoint and person's explanation is listed then I feel that it will allow people to make up their own minds. Saying that I don't expect this page to really change people's opinions either way - deniers will use it to support their view and those who agree will use it to point out what crazy views the deniers have. Dreamguy, remember that all theories are essentially POV statements. Smartse (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For once a notable list! The topic of this list is thrown around often among both people defending and supporting the global warming theory. Many people claim that only X amount of scientists believe in global warming, while others claim that so-and-so is a famous scientist and he's a sceptic. The verifiable sources in this article keep this NPOV while the notability of the specific topic make the fork acceptable. A more specific (and equally notable) list might be "List of climatologists opposing..." but this one is equally valid, if somewhat more vague. ThemFromSpace 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful summary of a wide range of view, and useful is a suitable criterion for a list. The people here all have articles with greater detail. This is immensely clearer than the corresponding category, because it doesn't lump them all together. It's not excessive weight on the fringe, considering the many different fringe viewpoints. "Making the controversy seem larger than it is" hardly applies to what will probably be seen historically as the decisive issue of our century. The only thing I'm concerned about is that some of them might not really deserve to be listed here, but that's for the talk page. Basically, I agree with what Atmoz said above. DGG (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clear inclusion criteria, sourced, verifiable, notable, encyclopedic, NPOV - ticks all the boxes. An NPOV description of a viewpoint and its proponents is not an endorsement. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many others. To wit: well defined inclusion criteria, strong encyclopedic purpose. There are quite a few spurious lists around and making a definitive one like this is to be welcomed. --TS 06:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; WP:NOTAGAIN. This article is well-sourced and encyclopedic. There is no good rationale to delete. Oren0 (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see this giving undue weight to the minority position, since it's a separate article whose very title says it's a minority position. Furthermore, this isn't just one position; it's a variety of different views. It's not inherently POV propaganda to report that a particular POV exists or that a variety of POVs exist. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:40, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terror Syndrome

[edit]
Terror Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:BAND. Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. No charted single or album. No indication of national or international tour. ttonyb1 (talk) 11:28, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Anne Petrie

[edit]
Helen Anne Petrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible copyvio of http://hubpages . com/hub/female-apartheid-south-african-painter--------HELEN-ANNE-PETRIE <-this link (spaces added as link is blacklisted). I'm not tagging it for speedy deletion as that link's FAQ also states Do I own a topic? HubPages does not assign ownership of a specific topic to a Hubber. Anyone is free to write on any topic they like. However, by creating a high number of Hubs filled with original, useful content, you will boost your HubPages status and you may become recognized in the community as an expert. so it might not be a copyvio. I'd also like to nominate Petrie, helen anne for deletion as a redirect to Helen Anne Petrie. AvN 11:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was copied from here I think...http://oziwizard.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html TeapotgeorgeTalk 15:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user page mentioned by linguist was speedily deleted. ("‎G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://oziwizard.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html") The article must then be a copyright infringement too. AvN 09:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but trim to short stub. See below. Athough the claim she has a work in the Tate does not seem correct [78], she does seem notable from things like this from Bonhams. But the current article reads like a poor magazine profile & is probably a copyvio. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but drastically cut down to stub per above...She seems genuine.. Modernist (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails verification and notability requirements. There are a mere 29 google hits.[79] Most repeat the same text as on hubpages.(Link blacklisted. Type a dot where it says DOT) This text is not reliable. It says she is in the Tate and National Portrait Gallery, London. She is in neither. It says she is several other national museums, collected by named royalty and collected by a stellar cast, including Estate John F. Kennedy, Estate Frank Sinatra, Bill Clinton, Madonna, Mike Myers, David & Victoria Beckham etc. This is not credible. There are four auction results from Bonham's (three in September 2008, one in February 2009) and two watercolours donated to the Royal Collection (annual report y/e 31 March 2008).[80] These by themselves are not sufficient to keep an article. There is no evidence of any material on this person before the last two years. Ty 01:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Possibly a WP:HOAX and certainly too many problems with WP:V and WP:RS. The entire tone of this biography coupled with a complete lack of any reliable sources -- and no mention anywhere other than self-submitted websites -- gives it a very "hoaxy" feel. As stated above, searches in the collections of the Tate, National Portrait Gallery and other galleries find no results. (The 2 Royal collection pieces were not acquired, but rather "bequeathed by the artist" after death). This same copyviolation article goes back to at least a deletion in June 2007 as seen here which indicated a copyright of 2006 by Sebastian L.S. Schwagele. A google search shows Schwagele is responsible for creating and submitting this information on the internet art sites -- including registering as User:Helen Anne Petrie and submitting the latest version as indicated here. And probably this incarnation User:Helen anne petrie (1933-2006) one week later. Until independent scholarly sources from the international art community write about this person, the bio should be deleted and because of the persistent addition by sockpuppets, it should probably be salted too. — CactusWriter | needles 15:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to delete Seems more like an attempt to promote sales than a hoax, but in view of the issues raised above, & weak claims to notability, delete. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tyrenius above...Initially I thought she had work at the Tate and was a viable possibility...seems to be simply not true...Modernist (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are several copies of this article in the User space. Type User:Helen and a couple pop up. Search the user space and there is another one. Some kind of scam is trying to use Wikipedia for a link farm or to increase the value of paintings. Drawn Some (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem to be the case. And this article has always been deleted as a G12 violation. However, this Afd discussion is needed so that we can determine the suitability of including even a non-copyrighted bio for this person based upon WP:BIO. That's why I'd like to see this discussion run its course before all these copies are speedied. I would like to know if there is any source of info for this person. — CactusWriter | needles 06:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that all three of the copies in user space be deleted and the users blocked as sockpuppets now and then the copy in article space can continue through AfD. Drawn Some (talk) 14:57, 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 redirect to Assault. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Car attack

[edit]
Car attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ideally should be CSD-ed as un-encyclopedic. Should be deleted, or redirected to Vehicular homicide. AvN 10:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicular homicide is significantly different from reckless driving. AvN 09:48, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cube inscribed in a sphere

[edit]
Cube inscribed in a sphere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article which makes heavy weather of a result which is basically a one line application of Pythagoras. Also we tend not to have articles which are proof. Salix (talk): 08:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's a sort of trivial mathematical consequence. The article does not claim why this relationship is notable. WP:MILL... We could have thousands of articles with trivial mathematical consequences such as this one. Gigs (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How hard would it be to do a quick merge-and-redir? It could easily be covered in some other, more general Pythagoras article (whatever that may be). flaminglawyer 16:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point it could redirect to Cube#Formulae. --Salix (talk): 17:01, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland–Serbia relations

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

another random combination. non resident embassies, no evidence of notable relations. LibStar (talk) 07:25, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina–Georgia relations

[edit]
Argentina–Georgia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination. non resident embassies. even the Georgia govt describes a minor relationship with minor trade and no bilateral agreements.[81] LibStar (talk) 07:12, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Hsu

[edit]
Jerry Hsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am not entirely convinced that this "professional skateboarder" is notable enough in terms of Wikipedia coverage. Recommending deletion for now. JBsupreme (talk) 06:51, 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 speedy delete. Copyvio of [82] -- WP:CSD#G12 — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rubina Dilaik

[edit]
Rubina Dilaik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Copypaste of a forum post 

Greedyhalibut (talk) 05:02, 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 Delete . Redirect created at Geno Dome. Marasmusine (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geno Dome (Chrono Trigger)

[edit]
Geno Dome (Chrono Trigger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy. Original nominator's rationale was, "No need to create a page detailing one out of dozens of locations in the game- no other locations have articles." SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:45, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Son

[edit]
Eugene Son (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about an apparently non-notable television writer as defined by the inclusion criteria at WP:N and WP:BIO. The only information on this person is short resume-style entries at websites like TV.com and IMDB. There does not appear to be any substantive, indepenednt, reliable sources out in the world about this person. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:04, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Jeary

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

Article seems to completely fail WP:N and WP:BIO inclusion criteria. I see no indication of independent coverage here. This article also seems a likely WP:AUTOBIO violation. It is basically a resume for a motivational speaker, and there does not appear to be much here to hang an article on. Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:55, 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. Wizardman 16:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OHSAA Football Rankings

[edit]
OHSAA Football Rankings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Football rankings for Ohio high schools for 2008 - not notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 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, nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Shakespeare

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Women in Shakespeare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have no doubt this is a notable topic. However, it's also a high school paper in its present form, not an encyclopedia article. It's been sitting around now for the better part of a year, and does us no credit. When someone's ready to start anew, great, but for now, let's get rid of this essay, which no amount of editing will really "improve" into a fully-developed article. Biruitorul Talk 03:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John William Waterhouse's Ophelia (1894), looking benevolently at the nominator after he withdrew.
  • Improvements have been made (mainly by reducing what was there), so I withdraw this nomination. Thank you to those who did the work, and my apologies if anyone's time was wasted. - Biruitorul Talk 19:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my "delete" recommendation in the light of Drmies's rewrite. I will, however, never understand how turning a manifestly unsuitable article into a Ship of Theseus is preferable to just nuking it and starting over. I still think that this is an intractable topic for an encyclopedia, so I'm neutral now. Deor (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep--Well, Deor, if you had told me about it, I could have tried! Call me next time. Seriously, this is a tough call since this is an incredibly notable topic, and this was an incredibly poor article. (Not a passing grade in my class either.) Books? Comic Women, Tragic Men: A Study of Gender and Race in Shakespeare by Linda Bamber, Rhetoric, Women, and Politics in Early Modern England by Jennifer Richards and Alison Thorne, Shakespeare and Women by Phyllis Rackin...there is plenty there. I don't think we should delete this, and I've made some cuts to the essay. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd known about the article before today, I'd certainly have told you, Drmies. :-) But where does one draw the line? This topic could be, and no doubt has been, the subject of multiple entire books, each with a different take on it. I'd like to see a suggestion of how it could be treated in an encyclopedic fashion without distorting or synthesizing the sources; simply rewriting a personal essay in a way that citations can be slapped on it does not make it an encyclopedia article. There are some topics that lend themselves to neutral and concise treatment in an encyclopedia and others that are so broad that only a comprehensive bibliography of relevant books and articles can point readers in the right direction. I fear this is one of the latter. Your cuts have eliminated some OR but have not solved the problem—-it's still as far from an informative article as it was. Deor (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, min Deor, I absolutely agree with you. It's still crap! But it's less crappy, and perhaps the cutting of crap is more inviting to editors to get to work on it. I think an article such as this should do two things: make some general statements about female characters in Shakespears (BTW, I don't think this is unproblematic--that sophomore essay didn't mention the sonnets) and perhaps their status (admittedly a tricky thing), and give an overview of some of the modern investigations of the topic. I have no doubt that it can be done, though I don't know if I can do it: I'm more of an Old English guy, and Sh. is a bit newfangled. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is notable as nom's statement "I have no doubt this is a notable topic" indicates. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable topic and per WP:TIND. Those who object to certain content within the article should feel free to stubbify it. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has been rescued to a somewhat respectable form by recent edits. Gigs (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No need to even nominate clearly notable topics when all that is needed is rewriting. Collect (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has great potential, which the nominator acknowledges. Problematic writing can be fixed in the editing process. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per nominator who admits it is a notable topic. Cleanup and improvement is a seperate issue. Edward321 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject is notable per nom's admission and various published works on the subject of Shakespeare and Women Gbooks search 15k results. The article needs cleanup and attention from an expert. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - yes, I "admit" (if we have to use that term, as if I'm on trial) the subject is notable. That's not the point. The point is that the article, in its current form, can neither be improved by editing, nor by reducing what is there to stub size. It requires starting anew. If someone wants to start literally from scratch, fine; but equally valid an option is deletion and starting over when the appropriate materials are found. - Biruitorul Talk 18:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment--well, the current article is really a stub. I can easily delete what was left of the original text and make it even stubbier, throw in a generic sentence and a book title, and that'll be a keeper then. If that's what you need, sure, but it strikes me as much ado about nothing, since there is clearly a consensus to keep. I took the liberty of creating Category:Female characters in Shakespeare (I hope I'm not duplicating anything--I looked for such an existing category and couldn't find anything) and of wikilinking all the names on that list that have articles. You'll note that all the delete votes were cast when the article was an utter mess; perhaps they'd feel differently now. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done
        • Caution: symbolic penis alert! OK, as I was typing a quote into the stub, I realized just to which extent the male critic of female personae wields his mighty phallus (borrowing Shakespeare's "magic wand") as he (re)opens them for his perusal: "The poet's magic wand has laid open the depths of woman's nature." There you have it, ladies. Shakespeare has laid you open, and every man can gawk to his heart's content. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On that theme, should we not perhaps rename? Anne Hathaway was the only (recorded) woman in Shakespeare (or, rather, he was in her); the article refers to a rather different set of women. - Biruitorul Talk 21:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe so. The title his this to recommend it--it's short and sweet. Any more correct title that I can come up with is long and unwieldy: Female characters in Shakespeare's ...what? Perhaps leaving the Dark Lady out and retitling the article "Female characters in Shakespeare's drama" is the way to go. BTW, Biruitorul, my phallic note is of course strictly symbolic ("the phallus is not a penis"), and I most strongly object to your insertion of graphic terminology into this soft, fertile subject matter. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources are present. in the current version. There is no article that cannot be improved by editing. There may possibly be article not worth improving, or that need an almost total rewrite to improve, but that does not apply to the present version, nor did it apply to earlier ones, since they were in fact improved to the present one. DGG (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:SNOW as previous AFD closed as keep and as nominator here has also withdrawn the nomination. Anyway, an obviously notable and verifiable and encyclopedic topic concerning depiction of characters in one of the all-time most significant playwright's plays, many of which have also been adapted into films. And yes, even print encyclopedias specifically discuss the topic of how Shakespeare depicted women (see for example here). What's good for actual print encyclopedias is surely good for paperless ones. Sure article can be improved, but so can pretty much everything. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —A NobodyMy talk 20:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —A NobodyMy talk 20:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup - Notability shown, just needs the OR cleaned up, but not a reason to delete. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and build a WP:SNOWman. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:23, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Green (professional wrestler)

[edit]
John Green (professional wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This may have been meant to be an article on a professional wrestler with a lower-level league, but it appears that the article's creator never bothered to complete it. I tried to research material to fill in the piece, but nothing was located that met WP:RS standards (there isn't even anything on Google for Mr. Green or his "Green Wrestling Family"). A speedy delete tag was brushed aside by a non-admin, so the article is brought here. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:13, 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 speedily deleted (G2) by Canterbury Tail, Non-admin closing to clean up closure by User:Gordonrox24. Deor (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Training at Fort Benning, Georgia

[edit]
Basic Training at Fort Benning, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article already exists at Fort Benning. No need for this article. gordonrox24 (talk) 02:03, 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 delete. As it stands, the article does not assert notability. If someone wants to rewrite it and add sources, they are welcome to do so. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GENESIS (FEA software)

[edit]
GENESIS (FEA software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Looks like product placement to me. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:43, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

West Herr

[edit]
West Herr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about a car dealership company that does not seem to meet the inclusion criteria spelled out at either WP:N or WP:CORP. There is a single tenuous claim to notability about being named to some list of "great places to work" from some local magazine, and a list of "top dealers" in Automotive News but there does not seem to be enough coverage anywhere to meet the "significant coverage" or "independent coverage" clauses in WP:N Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Defended by references, it has received critical acclaim, which qualifies the article as notable. Also, I think that this article has been tagged far too early for deletion. The article is still new and hasn't had enough time to develop yet. I'm seeing a well-referenced article of a notable company. --Sky Attacker (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Delete - as per comments below. --Sky Attacker (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**Comment--Sky Attacker has left me a note saying I should change my vote because I upset the balance at this AfD. Perhaps xe's right when xe says, on my talkpage, that "I don't know what I'm doing"--in that case, should I change my vote to keep the balance right? ;) Drmies (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC) **Comment The above user appears to be trying to stir a disruption on Wikipedia. While the first link is not part of the AfD debate (otherwise it would've been posted here) the second link is about a completely different situation that has NOTHING to do with THIS situation whatsoever. Ignore. --Sky Attacker (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)***Well, you said I don't know what I'm doing, so I'm jes askin' the good folks for advice... Drmies (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While it will be a pity to see the phrase "an unrepresented 4 times" be expunged from the project, I have been unable to find (after good-faith search) any reliable non-trivial third-party coverage of the company. The article itself advances a non-neutral POV, but that could be expunged. Hence, that (while true) is not the basis of my opinion to delete. Bongomatic 01:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first attempt at writing for Wikipedia, I struggled with the initial pages, hence the 40 edits. West Herr is a 1200 employee company and is hardly insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbleigh (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen those citations before commenting here. They appear to be essentially verbatim copies of press releases. Bongomatic 22:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The owners of West Herr are very humble and very seldom give interviews or report their successes or boast about their contributions. Add to that the fact that our local newspaper the Buffalo News Archives articles to sell them instead of making them public, makes it extremely hard to prove some of the facts about West Herr. Please offer other suggested ways to cit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbleigh (talk • contribs) 01:40, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha

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

I'm sorry my English isn't very good but I feel, that once you cut away the content that is original research or uses primary sources (half of the article is just a captain's log of some memory-alpha user's time spent on that site), there isn't enough to justify an article. This should be merged into Wikia or an article about Trekkies. The question is not whether it can be classified as 'noteworthy', but rather, whether there's enough 'substence'. For instance The New York Times article doesn't even mention memory-alpha at all, and several of the references are to pages on memory-alpha or simply unsourced. 'Hippocrates Noah's archived nomination for featured status can be found on Memory Alpha. There was an unprecedented level of debate associated with the nomination.' does not count as a source. Another example, is the influence that memory-alpha has had on other wikis. Does this get a mention in any of the references, probably not. It's just interesting facts about the site's place in wikia. I don't believe, the content of this page will be any thing more than 'memory-alpha is a star trek wiki that's pretty popular among fans. X Y Z have all noted it as a good resourse.', once you cut thru the things that don't belong on wikipedia. Its nothing personal. I have used the sight many a time myself. Tschravic (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the level of coverage recieved about this one site to be sufficient to meet the inclusion criteria spelled out in WP:N. If the article needs stylistic cleanup to be more in line with the MOS or other issues, such as inappropriate original research or NPOV issues, those issues can be cleaned up without deletion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, will there be anything left of the article once all of the inappropriate informations and unsourced statements are removed. My answer is no. That's why I want to merge it into somewhere else. Tschravic (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish that this article be merged somewhere, then I would recommend that you withdraw this nomination and start a merge proposal on Talk:Memory Alpha. While "merge" is one possible result of an AFD discussion, there's no real way to enforce a "merge" close if the regular editors are dead set against it. A "merge" close is more or less a "keep" close with a strong recommendation to merge. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it has some references, I have used it at least twice, seemed noteable - more noteable than some tiny little places that have their own articles, this article seems well enough written, has alot of information on the topic - as good and as notable as many other wikipedia articles in my humble opinion - for what its worth this reader suggests keep the article - [of course like all articles it can be improved over time] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.145.169 (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't readily meet the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DEL#REASON criterion (see summary listing below)

copyright infringement: none; vandalism: none (if you don't count the repeated nominations); spam: none; forks: none; originality/hoaxes: none; lack of sources: none; notability: debatable, but since it was a featured article I'd say it's notable enough to keep; policy breach-biography of living: none; redundancy: none; overcategorization: debatable as "small lacking growth", but how else should it be listed?; Image issues: none; use contrary to policy: none; non-encyclopedic nature: none.

besides which: 6 noms? This should be a no-brainer by now. It's survived 5 rounds: Let it be already.

VulpineLady (talk) 23:12, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago-Kent Corporate Law Society

[edit]
Chicago-Kent Corporate Law Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

College club, with no confirmed notability beyond its campus. Google News searches turn up nothing. Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This non-for-profit organization is known amongst corporate law-focused students and professors from ABA accredited law schools. It is an organization of more than 100 people that encourages the expansion of transactional curriculum at law schools. It's Corporate Law Spring Speaker Series has attracted notable experts in the field to speak. In fact, the organization is planning to start a symposium conference next year. Its Blog articles have been quoted from and are featured on several lists. Accordingly, it meets the WP:ORG guidelines. 09:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagokentcls (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark L. Roberts

[edit]
Mark L. Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable, probable autobio. A couple of youtube videos and writing for the college paper. Dan D. Ric (talk) 01:06, 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 speedy redirect to Richard Bachman#Bibliography. Just as uncontroversial as the Novels by Stephen King nomination below. Mgm|(talk) 11:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novels by Richard Bachman

[edit]
Novels by Richard Bachman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redundant due to Stephen_King_bibliography Anshuk (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 Redirect to Stephen King bibliography. I'm going to say that this redirect is uncontroversial enough to speedily close. Malinaccier (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novels by Stephen King

[edit]
Novels by Stephen King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redundant due to Stephen_King_bibliography Anshuk (talk) 00:46, 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 Delete obvious hoax/nonsense/Neologism. Salix (talk): 13:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depressive Avio-porcine Respiratory Terrorism Syndrome (DARTS)

[edit]
Depressive Avio-porcine Respiratory Terrorism Syndrome (DARTS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced Neologism - No hits on Google. Greedyhalibut (talk) 00:26, 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) 10:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Webnode

[edit]
Webnode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)
History of Webnode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)
(View AfD)

Looks like a dime-a-dozen hosting service, only referenced to the website itself. Delete (or restore redirect to web hosting service). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:42, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 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 merge to STV News at Six. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Real MacKay

[edit]
The Real MacKay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Video blog website which shows no evidence of notability required by WP:WEB. I42 (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following sub-page:

List of The Real MacKay episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 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.
  1. ^ [83]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_2&oldid=1142643863"