Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 7

< 6 March	8 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was No consensus to delete. While that means this defaults to keep, I'd point out that the general consensus within the debate below indicates that a merge would be suitable. The central argument that many agree with is that these articles are not encyclopedic, nor are they meeting our standards. The dispute is over how to fix that issue, and I think the consensus within this debate is that editorial clean-up is the preferred option. To turn a metaphor, people would rather prune the unwieldy tree than chop it down, since the tree itself seems to have value. I'd suggest good faith efforts are made to clean these articles up, work out which ones need merging, establish whatever redirects are needed, and then anything superfluous be brought back to the appropriate deletion venue. I think all parties should allow a reasonable period of time to get that work done, and I'd advise against a group listing of this set of articles in the future. So while this has defaulted to keep, no-one should walk away under the illusion that the status quo is acceptable; that would be a severe misreading of the consensus below. Hiding T 10:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SDF-1 Macross

Article is about a fictional vehicle from a cartoon series and fails WP:NOT and WP:NOTE. Basically a plot summary with no indication of having received additional coverage through reliable sources.

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

These are all about fictional planets, locations and plants from the same series. Sloane (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. Entirely plot summary and in-universe details without any sort of real-world information for non-notable fictional elements which have not received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These article are drawn from very popular television series. Articles like this are common throughout wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unnotable fictional vehicles and other fictional elements. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT, with no significant coverage from reliable sources on any real-world aspect of these vehicles/items. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fewer than half the articles nominated for discussion are about vehicles. DGG (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked to include "other elements" which I noted in my second sentence. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and Transwiki?) - There's been no attempt to establish real world notability but they're otherwise articles that aren't crafted too badly. Because of the lack of real world notability they don't belong here but maybe they belong somewhere. --Boston (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and heavily cleanup SDF-1 Macross. Calling the SDF Macross unnotable is like proposing Starship Enterprise for deletion for the same thing, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or not. I agree the page is in need of showing the notability, but it really is a cleanup issue and not a deletion issue. The same possibly extends to VF-1 Valkyrie. These two articles should not be part of any mass deletion process, and the sources most definately exist. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and then consider whether to Merge into suitable articles. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. Nominating miscellaneous articles for deletion in apparently random indiscriminate groups is confusing and unproductive. DGG (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Random? These are all articles about the same cartoon.--Sloane (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two actually. DGG is correct though, lumping them all together just because they are from the same franchise is rather questionable. If they were all character articles or all vehicle articles there would be less of a complaint Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never liked derailing a productive discussion on semantic grounds. It reeks too much of obstructionism. Reyk _YO! 01:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked again and these are all from the Robotech cartoon series. And if it makes you happy, I'll be sure to not lump in any fictional plants with fictional vehicles next time.--Sloane (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SDF Macross and VF-1 Valkyrie are also Super Dimension Fortress Macross, which Robotech uses as source material for the first 1/3 of its content Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all- Excessively lengthy, excessively crufty articles about minor aspects of a fictional world. It is way beyond the scope of an encyclopedia to provide so much unsourced detail on non-notable fictional elements; there's Wikia for that. A merge is not appropriate because unsourced information should be deleted rather than stashed away in other articles- presenting the information correctly would mean sourcing it and rewriting it, and if you're going to do that you might as well do it from scratch in the merge target rather than putting it in a bad article and then merging. Reyk _YO! 01:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft is a cleanup issue not a deletion issue for an article of this type. Would you suggest delete as cruft if it was well sourced but needed trimming? Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft as I understand it includes a lot of flaws an article can have. Some can be fixed, like being badly written, written from an entirely in-universe perspective, full of conjecture, or written as effusive fannish praise. Although even then I might recommend deleting because sometimes it's just so awful it's better to tear it down and start over. Other faults cannot be fixed, such as the nonexistence of sources that establish notability or verifiability. When I use "cruft" as a deletion reason it's because I think the article has one or more of the unfixable faults, and I usually mention them explicitly as well. Reyk _YO! 01:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've taken 10k of text off the article already and am currently adding some sources. Hopefully this will show that the article can be saved without having to delete it first. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - well I think that that articles should stay unless we delete articles like Coruscant, X-wing, Cylon Basestar, etc... -- Bojan 01:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally saying other articles exist is not a good argument to use. Perhaps the other articles have advantages that these ones don't, such as substantial coverage in independent sources. Or perhaps they are equally deserving of deletion and it's just that nobody has got around to them yet. The existence of one article on Wikipedia has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of another. Reyk _YO! 01:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Thanks, but I know the rule. But also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and therefore, my vote is week keep. -- Bojan 01:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many find it odd that the same types of articles are never challenged elsewhere. That is because no one nominates anything at all, no matter what it is, if it has enough fans around to defend it. They just pick on the unpopular kids for now, and go after the rest once they believe they have enough numbers. Various deletionists have already commented on this tactic of theirs in the past. Consensus is more of a popularity contest than anything else. Dream Focus 01:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Consensus should be about strength of argument rather than a simple head count. If that's how it worked in practice a lot more terrible articles would be deleted, and a lot more bad articles with potential would actually be improved because the "OMGKeepImportant!1!!one!" brigade would suddenly realize that finding sources and establishing notability actually matters. As it stands, all the fannish side have to do is turn up to AfD en masse and go "Keep. Important" and save the cruft through "no consensus". Closing admins who actually have the courage to correctly close such a discussion by weighing up the actual arguments, and delete the article, frequently get raked over the coals at deletion review by inclusionists going "OMG! Head count! Head count! 8 deletes to 5 keeps! That's ZOMGNOCONSENSUS!!!!" so that there's no incentive for a closing admin to do anything but take the "no consensus" route to start with. Reyk _YO! 01:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You should not delete something because of its length, or because you consider fancruft. The ship is a key feature used in a highly successful series, and there is enough information to warrant its own article. Dream Focus 01:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the article for deletion tag for all of those things comes back here. Never saw that done before. I don't see as how all of those could be grouped together. I vote Keep all. If you want to nominate things separately, then they'll be seriously considered on their individual merit. Dream Focus 01:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your unfamiliarity with Wikipedia guidelines is a hardly an argument for keeping the articles. See WP:BUNDLE.--Sloane (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I get the feeling the other articles in this "grouping" will mean SDF-1 gets deleted even if cleaned up and shows notability. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Major trim and merge per Dandy Sephy. The SDF-1 and most of these vehicles were covered in independent derivative works (Robotech (role-playing game)) by Palladium Books and novels in the 1980's, all based on the original manga and long since out of print. Agree that there's generally no need for this raft of articles, which should be intelligently merged, nor is there a need for the huge, detailed plot summaries. Nothing against transwiki'ing these as they are, but many of these are genuinely notable fictional elements per WP:FICT, and should be kept as redirects. Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books references include, excluding the fictional works themselves
  - The Art of Robotech
  - Watching Anime, Reading Manga
  - Fortresses: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases (There are several similar hits... not entirely sure what they all are)
  - The Science of Anime
- Google News has a few relevant hits, too.
  - Gamespy
  - Akiba Today --Not entirely sure what this one is, but Google News lists it.
  - Space.com episode recap.
  - CNet mentioning SDF-1 in the context of a GameCube game.
- Overall, this was a pretty trivial search for independent sources which mention the SDF-1 (and "Macross" to cut down on false positives). Again, the article(s) should be cleaned up and merged intelligently, but there is no question that sufficient independent, reliable sources exist to establish notability. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately after starting to add some of them, the webster quotation sources aren't any good. Ironically, despite being published works, their source is wikipedia according to their prefaces ....... Pretty sure we cant use them! Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and don't forget the computer organization Super Dimension Fortress! --Gwern (contribs) 16:59 8 March 2009 (GMT)

Keep and perhaps editorially merge. Reasonable spinout articles of hugely notable series. Hobit (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though notability of these topics are dubious and they're like 80% plot summary, it doesn't appear like you tried to challenge the notability before taking the articles to AfD. Personally I think most the plot should be cut from these articles and to merge them down to fewer articles or to parent articles; but this looks like the case of taking articles to AfD without trying alternate solutions first. AfD is supposed to be the last resort. Also: @Dandy I'm not sure WP:SK applies here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right, it was a reactionary comment. I've decided to try to improve the article instead. Of all the Robotech articles needing removal or merging, SDF-1 is not the first one to tackle (and people are completely unaware that Robotech is only part of the dicussion with that article)Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems kind of unfair to those working on the article to hit them with an AfD without any prior discussion or tagging. It kind of imposes this unnecessary deadline that could actually hinder the creation of a good article by forcing a hurried search for references and hasty trimming. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The subject of Robotech needing merges and such was started and there was discussion, and a lot of content has since been dealt with. However, this was mostly character work, not the major plot device of an entire series. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced SDF-1 Macross by 16k, and VF-1 Valkyrie by 13k. That should help with cruft complaints (they need work, but they are now half the size they were). I've only added 1 reliable source for each though as im tired, and this debacle is the only reason I'm up. However 1 source is a published book, and the other source is from Anime News Network. I've no doubt that more sources exist, but it requires time to collect and add them. Countless books and magazines have discussed both of these in great detail, and I suspect that given time these articles can clearly demonstrate notability. I propose at least delaying a final decision on these two articles for at least one week. The remaining articles are unlikely to demonstrate notability, and should be either be split to a seperate discussion, or have SDF-1 and VF-1 removed from the current discussion Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is the focus of the major plot line of the series. It's the reason behind the actions of all the major characters, the reasons the aliens come to Earth, and so on. As for the Valkyrie, it's the major attack vehicle used in the series, and both the SDF-1 and the Valkyrie have had a whole series of models, toys, games (video games and otherwise), puzzles, etc., created based on them. There are numerous official and unofficial books about the series, as well as numerous articles in magazines, on websites, etc. These articles only fail sourcing, not notability. Lack of sourcing just means people need to get the sources into the article, not that the subjects are non-notable. The rest of the articles should be merged into an article like List of vehicles and mecha in the Macross universe. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SDF-1 and VF-1 Valkyrie, since they are featured in alot of material, and form the basis of realistic-looking transformable mecha weaponry in anime/manga and cartoons. Further, VF-1 was a very popular toy, and the basis of a Transformers toy, and two characters, which is an entirely separate fictional universe. Merge the fictional locations into a List of locations in Macross and List of locations in Robotech (this would parallel how other fictional universes are dealt with), the fictional vehicles into a List of vehicles in Macross and counterpart for Robotech (this would parallel how Gundam is handled), the other stuff into overviews of the Macross and Robotech universes... say Macross (fictional universe) and Robotech (fictional universe), since the flower of life is a central concept to Robotech, and Protoculture is a central concept to Macross. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment all of this should also be transwikied whether they are kept or not, to [1] and [2] and [3] 76.66.193.90 (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All (and I did check them all). Woeful failure to meet any reasonable inclusion criteria other than WP:ILIKEIT. These are non-notable in the extreme and unverified other than by primary sources (and I loved the refs to ja:wp). People, such cruft hurts Wikipedia; please stop degrading the project with such dross — this is what Wikipedia is not. nb: I specifically endorse the comments by Reyk and recommend them to others. From a few further peeks about, there are many more 'articles' in the navbox that should not be here either; Lisa Hayes, for example — next batch. Jack Merridew 07:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And your comments have a touch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT about them, so be careful about throwing such things around. That and you're claiming 'these' are "non notable in the extreme" when several editors are stating that two of them are far more notable then are being given credit for (the rest fair enough, but you are lumping them in together). Again, deleting articles in need of cleanup and sourcing is not what afd is for. Lastly, the navbox is outdated, several pages have already been merged Dandy Sephy (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're badgering me about your WP:OR re my views? Too funny. I'd suggest you badger someone else, but it appears you are doing rather a lot of that on this page already. Jack Merridew 07:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete None of these is notable in the real world, which is what Wikipedia's articles are judged by; they are all excessively in-universe and should be transwiki'd to the appropriate wiki. We need reliable sources showing that these subjects are notable in themselves, since notability isn't inherited from the parent article. I quote WP:PLOT: Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work. If this doesn't apply to these articles, what does it apply to? Themfromspace (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lets avoid systemic bias shall we? Nihonjoe makes the policy based argument and makes it well. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some, merge others Salute Nihonjoe contribution here. I would rather keep SDF-1 and VF-1 Valkyrie as they let me think a bit of that one: Gundam (mobile suit). Granted those two need lot of trimming, sourcing and tone adjustment BUT i think that any readers wanting a clear and complete understanding on Sci-Fi anime mecha subject won't get it without those two. Those who think that 4-5 lines about those two subjects will do, are not doing better than tossing a ham bone to potential readers. My motive here is the Wikipedia coverage completeness of the Sci-Fi anime mecha subject. The remaining articles should be sorted and merged as the Macross & Robotech licenses are mixed up. --KrebMarkt 08:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having little to no real-world notability. Second choice would be merging. For the sake of full disclosure, please note that I was canvassed to come to this AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You were not alone User_talk:KrebMarkt#AfD_nomination_of_SDF-1_Macross --KrebMarkt 15:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the participants were. Anime related AFD's never attract this much attention by themselves. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Dandy Sephy Stay cool will you ? This whole Afd is already tainted be the canvassing regardless the result and i strongly suggest Sloane to refrain himself/herself next time. --KrebMarkt 15:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tainted, lol. There is nothing wrong with proper canvassing. It helps get as much editors as possible to an afd.--Sloane (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed The "canvassing" to get me here was done logically--based on previous AfD contributions--and neutrally--i.e., the nominator invited me, even though I was likely to (and did) make a modified keep argument. I wish every nominator was as conscientious. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you should have my apologize. I'm a real dick to a be a such unbeliever of Good Faith. --KrebMarkt 20:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but perhaps pare down. I have stayed out of the arguments on including the various historical events in Robotech, but the Macross itself is a more significant fictional construct, existing in multiple contradictory series, & this page usefully shows its usage across those. It's more like Robin Hood or Cthulhu in that way than like, say, Yumura Kirika. Ventifax (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SDF-2 Megaroad-01, SDF-3 Pioneer, SDF-4 Izumo, Optera, Tirol (fictional planet), Reflex Point, Flower of Life (fiction), and Protoculture (Macross) for lacking non-notable. I always find it easier to rewrite a concise list entry summary from scratch then try to trim down an couple of pages of plot summary down to ~100-200 words. Merge or Redirect SDF-1 Macross and VF-1 Valkyrie to an appropriate place with no prejudice to restoring when more reliable third-party sources are found. I'm actually more neutral on the last two and I do know that the Veritech was the bases of one of the G1 Transformers, though sources should be sought to substantiate that. --Farix (Talk) 00:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources I added to VF-1 concerning the toy ranges mentioned it, so I have added this fact and used a named reference Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I double checked the reference and didn't see it mentioned. --Farix (Talk) 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job you did check, I recalled the wrong reference... Fixed Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cough.. bringing that subject there. The Valkyrie was borrowed or so in early Battletech game design see BattleMech#Land-Air_.27Mech_.28LAM.29. I may have the incriminated Technical Readout: 3025. (Need to check my Battetech collection) --KrebMarkt 07:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ALL Since they are about fictional location and/or vehicles from an influential SCIENCE FICTION TV animated series as important to the genre as the Tripod from War of the Worlds, the Powered Armor from Starship Troopers, the Enterprise from Star Trek or the Lightsabers from Star Wars. The fact that any of the people who don't know or aren't interested in those topics want it deleted doesn't mean they aren't important. If they are deleted then you could very well star deleting everything related to SCIENCE FICTION as well....Kronnang Dunn (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is kind of a WP:ALLORNOTHING falacy. Notability is not related to to people being interested in a topic. It only relates to reliable independent sources being interested in the topic.--Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like? As far as I know, the SDF-1 Macross and the VF-1 Valkyrie are robot anime symbols recognized in Japanese media as well as the Gundam. Do all the countless toy companies and model magazines still producing articles related to such icons count as reliable independent sources? --Kronnang Dunn (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. You can't really make a blanket statements about sources. I'm just saying it makes no sense to say "if you delete x, you have to delete everything in the whole category". Don't get me wrong, I think they should be kept. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SDF-1 Macross and VF-1 Valkyrie, Merge the rest. As has been shown, there are plenty of independant sources, and these are notable elements from notable setting. I'd suggest books on the history of anime be checked for sourcing as well, as the series was one of the first major successes in the US that led to the current popularity of anime and manga there. Edward321 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Universe of Robotech. The best i could think of is merging all the article to Universe of Robotech and then from there make it encyclopedic. It is better to do this way than deleting it. --SkyWalker (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SDF-1 Macross and VF-1 Valkyrie are shared with Super Dimension Fortress Macross Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes iam aware of that. Macross will have to share the same fate has Robotech. The whole of character section needs to be merged and the whole bunch of vehicles need to be merged or be deleted. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't merge Macross and Robotech since both are different Universes. The Macross franchise is even bigger and has more productions (anime series, OVAS and movies) than the Robotech one. Merging both will make it more even confusing than it already is for people who want to learn (what is the main use of Wikipedia, am I wrong?) anything about both franchises and the differences between them. --Kronnang Dunn (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Robotech merges the completely unrelated The Super Dimension Cavalry Southern Cross and The Super Dimension Century Orguss. People should really learn about what merges they are proposing, before they propose them Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if i not made it clear. I was not talking about merging Macross and Robotech together.--SkyWalker (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. This is not the best use of community resources. As DGG points out AfD wasn't likely even needed here. Keep all and let those interested work to suss out what, where and when to merge anything. We're not in a rush here. -- Banjeboi 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and cleanup mainly as per DGG. Arguments like "such cruft hurts Wikipedia" really put me off. There are many articles on Wikipedia on which I would never ever spend my time reading, I just can't see why this entitles me to deny others from doing that. As long as it is factual and meets the five pillars, (or could reasonably be made to meet the five pillars, especially WP:V) it should stay. WP:IDONTLIKEIT sums up my attitude to the pages, but it is a terrible argument for deletion. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SDF-1 Macross: The others can be merged into a list if necessary (I have no real opinion on them, but this process of nominating 20 things for deletion together has to stop), but the Macross is an extremely notable machine, as well as having historical significance. Article badly needs to be rewritten, not deleted.kuwabaratheman (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SDF-1 Macross This is an important cultural symbol and franchise marker in japan, it is on the same level as the Enterprise, argumbly more used than the Galactica, and yet nominated? The others need to be listed but this is just the determinist WP:IDONTLIKEIT at work WngLdr34 (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did find the page where the image caption on the right side was quoted verbatim. Maybe Wiki is in copyright violation too? I cited the page in the fist section of caption for everybody's reference. However, there seems to be a lot of 2nd nature knowledge here, as in this is something someone has studied for so long they have knowledge but failed to cite enough sources. Plus there are so many discussing the page that there is interst to keep it. Let's keep looking for more to support the articleHappy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I will defend to the death my right to have an article on Star Destroyers, and I don't see how this is any different. Some guy (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's different because it's about a different topic. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Babinsky

A school board trustee does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. There are no other assertions of notability, and no significant news coverage. Prod was removed without a reason, so I brought it here. FingersOnRoids 23:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, 1 hit via gnews by search "Mike Babinsky winnipeg" §hawn poo 01:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Shawnpoo. THF (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Power.corrupts (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to List of Ethnic Slurs#C. Non admin closure. §hawn poo 02:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chonky

Neologism (only "source" seems be Urban Dictionary). Not enough coverage to warrant inclusion at List of ethnic slurs. Not speedy deletable. Cycle~ (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:MADEUP. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 23:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as a non-notable neologism with no good options for redirection.Synchronism (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a neologism -- see [4], [5], [6], [7] for examples of reliable source usage. Don't think we've got enough to support a stand-alone article, but a mention at List of ethnic slurs seems reasonable. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. Propose re-write and redirect to List of ethnic slurs. Cycle~ (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per Baileypalblue. Nice catch, but it seems that your third link has the word having a different meaning than the other links. FingersOnRoids 23:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of ethnic slurs with found reliable resources.Synchronism (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as per above editors §hawn poo 02:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. §hawn poo 16:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fucked For Life

~~Cant find any hits via google~~Cannot establish notability and all the sources are in swedish §hawn poo 22:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, why don't you go translate them then? Non-English references is not a reason for deletion per WP:NONENG. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried but they translate into things with no sentence structure and dont make sense §hawn poo 23:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, start with fixing the ref tags. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 23:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I agree with the editors above, you should translate the sources first,so we can see how reliable these sources are and what they consist of. However, I'm not sure how notable a gang with only 40 or so members could be. FingersOnRoids 23:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gangs get their notability from their actions rather than their size. Even a small amount of people, or even a single individual, can leave a notable mark on the world. - Mgm|^(talk) 01:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, one could contact WP Sweden to check the article before nominating it. It is not yet tagged for that WP. They might not be aware of it. I'll do that now. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 01:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea HexaChord, I didn't even think of that. I checked and found it at here. §hawn poo 01:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant WikiProject Sweden, but the Swedish Wikipedia is of course another good look. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 02:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found refs to its existence here but you have to search the article for Fucked For Life. Still does not validate its notability though. §hawn poo 02:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a bit of WP:N/CA here. The google translations from swedish to english are easy to understand. There are also english language swedish news sites--have you noticed if they mention the article topic? Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant news coverage. And not just tabloids; one of the sources is the magazine of the governmental agency Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet). Tomas e (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of the most well-known criminal gangs in Sweden in recent years. They have been the subject of possibly hundreds of media items over a period of many years. They are discussed by the Swedish Council for Crime Prevention [8]. They are the subject of at least one masters-thesis in sociology [9]. They are compared to the most violent and well-known criminal gangs by the Swedish Police [10]. They are mentioned in two different SOUs [11] and [12]. Koyos (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tomas e and Koyos for the clarification on this. §hawn poo 16:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Minnesota#East Bank §hawn poo 02:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northrop Mall

Non-notable area of a university campus TM 22:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University_of_Minnesota#East_Bank where the subject is already adequately discussed, per Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Sub-articles. It's not necessary to go through the trouble of an AfD on every one of these non-notable university sub-articles; easier to try redirecting first. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Speedily deleted (G4) and temporarily salted. Original discussion is here. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Officially Aaliyah: Rare and Unreleased

Quite a weekend for these things. Yet another WP:CRYSTAL violator. No sources, no confirmation that I can find. —Kww(talk) 22:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G4) and create-protect – Not again! MuZemike 22:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (A7) by Thingg. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafa Husni al Haj-Eid

I don't know if this guy is notable or not, but the article as written is certainly propaganda in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Why was the db tag removed anyways? I found 0 hits on google Lets drink Tea 22:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The {{db}} tag was removed from this article by the person who created the page. In addition. Not notable, not NPOV TheDude2006 (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It is conceivable he could be notable if all of the claims in the article are true (that he was a well-known Palestinian fighter and was targeted for assassination by the IDF), but pending sources and a re-write, it shouldn't be kept.--TM 22:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell, his nom-de-guerre was "Abo Hosni", probably better to search on than the full name. (Abu and/or Husni are variant spellings, probably better) but I don't find anything under any of these with a quick search.John Z (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI added the speedy delete tag {{db-a7}} to the page as it was a non notable person as stated above and confirmed by google searches §hawn poo 01:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged with List of Latin phrases (C-E). Non admin closure. §hawn poo 01:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Experientia docet

~~Seems like it doesnt belong in an encyclopedia.~~ I agree below with Mystache §hawn poo 22:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List_of_Latin_phrases_(C-E). Mystache (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect to List_of_Latin_phrases_(C-E). I created the page, but was unaware of the list of latin phrases when I did so. I apologize for the mistake. kilbad (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing Research Practitioner

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

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

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

Seems to be original reasearch. I can find no evidence that such a concept as a manufacturing research practitioner exists. Comments by the author on the talk page (since deleted by the author) indicate that this is a doctoral study. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Reads like notes from a powerpoint that i slept through. Mystache (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesnt even define what the term means. Mystache (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dug through the article, found some sort of a definintion and made it into something like a lead. Mystache (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting definition, since Wikipedia is less than original; perhaps ingesting some talent occasionally can’t hurt. West Point forbids its cadets from using any Wikipedia as a source. I found Manufacturing Research Practitioner by using Google, since Google is the General of Internet search, worth listening too. My question is how do you become judge and jury for Wikipedia, I’m interested in signing up. My vote is keep Manufacturing Research Practitioner.--Jasonanders (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Jason Enders USMA — Jasonanders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note that, while google is not necessarily an indicator for inclusion, a google search of the term yields 9 hits, most of which are wikipedia or the author's blog Mystache (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jason (Joe Army) during undergrad class a professor lectured about the disconnect between manufacturing expert and academic researcher. Now as a grad student at Texas A&M, we have been instructed not to take Wikipedia seriously. Manufacturing Research Practitioner reads to as the potential next generation of researcher. My vote it keep this page and encourage others to edit and add to it... --Johnking2 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)John P.King — Johnking2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment/Internal Monologue If your instruction tells you to not take wikipedia seriously, why do you care about the inclusion of this article? and more importantly why should it be kept? Mystache (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. THF (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. John king has made no other edits other than this page. I'm thinking sockpuppet of Jasonsanders §hawn poo 03:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per the "PowerPoint" argument :-) ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 07:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Please do just that, Pietro

Delete per nom. Nelson50^T 12:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is on your About Page, it appears it no longer applies? [13] Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge. This means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles. Most of the articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references, or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. Substandard or disputed information is subject to removal. Users need not worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors, and Wikipedia's software is carefully designed to allow easy reversal of editorial mistakes.--PietroSavo (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Pietro[reply]

I think I am getting the hang of this--PietroSavo (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Pietro[reply]

Anyone is welcome to add ... as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies. cf wp:note, wp:att, wp:pov, wp:or. Mystache (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any Gscholar or Gbook hits. Fails WP:V, which is one of the most basic policies around. I'm not happy with the comments above "Reads like notes from a powerpoint that i slept through" - what is that good for? - unnecessary I would say. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - nough said. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underlying Decline Rate Observed

Neologism, recently coined, very few uses of this phrase. Google search for "Underlying Decline Rate Observed" only results in five links, two of them being Wikipedia. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 22:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. wikipedia is not a section of your business plan. Mystache (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course coinage is recent. OECD's IEA commenced discussion wrt decline and ramification issues in its Nov 2008 World Energy Outlook.--207.189.237.183 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To support an article about a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term. It seems unlikely that such sources currently exist. decltype (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Confirmed noms statement about few search hits. Only one source which suggests original research §hawn poo 01:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sounds like original, unverified research. Alexius08 (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research, Possibly fails WP:N. No references. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted and create-protection Non admin closure. §hawn poo 05:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bluemoon Games

Game developer with no real claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Article speedied twice today, created a third time by a different editor whose only edit was to create this page, then the speedy deletion tag on it was removed by the creator of the first two versions. 0 gnews hits and just 30 ghits for this organization, none of which show a whiff of notability. Skipping prod because I know the tag will be removed in minutes. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was misconsidered for deletion. The article is alright and should remain available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyro02 (talk • contribs) 22:20, March 7, 2009 (UTC) — Spyro02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per nom. Not a notable developer. --Frehley^Space ^Ace 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this article is just promotion for the non-notable organization in question. Reyk _YO! 22:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Protect Page Creation Since its been speedied twice today it should be protected from being created §hawn poo 22:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Protect Page Creation. I tried to talk to the author of this article on his talk page in order to convince him to leave the article in his user space and build it up slowly but he just blanked his discussion page. Likewise on the previously existing discussion page at Talk:Bluemoon Games he did not seem interested in proving notability and instead seemed to assume we all had an agenda against him. Also note that this article has been deleted three times on the German Wikipedia (de:Bluemoon Games). Lastly, I think the page should be salted because this author has created his article a total of at least seven times including once with a lowercase g. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Spyro02 is repeatedly removing the AfD tag from the article. I've given him a final warning on this.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11 or A7) and create-protect – (edit conflict) article written like a PR piece, which falls under WP:SPAM. One could also argue failure to indicate why this company is important, which falls under A7. Also request generous amount of salt due to the repeated recreation. MuZemike 00:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added the speedy delete tag and put it in RFPP lets see what happens §hawn poo 00:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden James

Unreferenced, seems to be living person, non-notable rugby league player, dosen't meet rugby league notability guidelines, only external link is a first party source, badly written article, stub, nothing too much from Google to indicate notability or sources which could help expand the article. Recently PROD, removed, I brought it here. The Windler talk 21:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Non notable, page doesn't even have an infobox. §hawn poo 04:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:Athlete. florrie 12:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Athete was a player in a team that no longer exists. Fails WP:Athlete per above. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Minnesota. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate and Professional Student Assembly

Non-notable feature of graduate students. No outside sources demonstrating notability TM 21:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a student life section within University of Minnesota or Delete. Mystache (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, probably to a new section within University of Minnesota as no current section seems well-fitted; Graduate and Professional Student Assembly will be a problematic redirect because many universities have GAPSAs, so consider renaming the article before merging. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, definitely notable in the context of the other article; I would keep all the current uses as redirects, as the UMN GAPSA is much larger and more organized than any other in the country. --Bobak (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University_of_Minnesota. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wake Student Magazine

Non-notable campus publication TM 21:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to University_of_Minnesota#Media where the subject is already discussed, per Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Sub-articles. The case is weaker here than for Minnesota Republic, because this publication has at least some independent reliable source coverage and at least one claim to importance, possibly even notability via its award win in 2006. However, I don't think there's enough to justify a stand-alone article. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. I did some work on the article a while back when I found it in the backlog, but I don't think it's truly notable to be a standalone article. StarM 03:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK Adult Film and Television Awards

Not a notable award. Very limited press coverage. What exists goes mainly to show that it is not notable. For example, article about how the well-known mainstream people who were supposedly going to show up never came, and that most of the "guests" were porn fans who paid to meet their favorite performers. Only other significant coverage was "news of the weird" type about how the publicity-seeking award givers had nominated a popular TV show for a porn award. An award doesn't become notable just by having a famous person nominated for it -- otherwise there'd be an entry on Wikipedia for "Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's Favorite TV Performer Award" and such. This award is so insignificant that after only two years it's website has gone dead and there's a notice that the server bill hasn't been paid. Delete. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mainstream news articles linked in the article suggest notability. I see no grounds to delete here. JulesH (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete, the BBC news article is about Billie Piper, and the Awards are not the focus of the article. There is the article from The Guardian, which may indicate that there may be something notable out there, but with no further sources fulfilling WP:GNG (and I couldn't find any myself), I agree with the nominator that the notability of these awards is very dubious at best. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reliable sources recently introduced to the article establishing WP:GNG. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's actually a fair amount of reliable source coverage available -- most of it focuses on the Billie Piper award, but that's not entirely disqualifying. The GNG doesn't require that a source provide "exclusive" coverage of the subject to convey notability, only "non-trivial" coverage, and the BBC and ITN articles cited give as much info on the UKAFTA as they do on Billie Piper. That coverage, plus the Guardian article reviewing a previous UKAFTA award ceremony, passes the bar of multiple, independent significant RS coverage and conveys the presumption of notability. The other, more specific rationales presented by the nominator are not valid grounds for deletion: negative press coverage does not confer non-notability; a non-functioning official website (or the cessation of the organization, as may be the case here) does not confer non-notability because notability is not temporary; the fact that the organization nominated a celebrity does not convey notability, but the fact that its award was commented on by reliable sources does convey notability -- that's the difference between the UKAFTA and "Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's Favorite TV Performer Award". Baileypalblue (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Quick google search shows plenty of hits and coverage. Seems notable to me. Unionsoap (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agreed with Unionsoap, confirmed google hits although there are no gnews hits §hawn poo 04:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The awards have been discussed by The Independent, The Guardian, the BBC, and Channel 4 news. These four sources are coincidentaly (IMHO) the best, most respected and reliable British sources of news and current affairs information. ie. as media sources go, they literaly couldnt be any more reliable. Willy turner (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to the Alexander Douglas dab page. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 20:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Douglas

An empty page.

Thanks. Blaze42 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Alex Douglas (Politician), as that is what the author intended. Eauhomme (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move Alex Douglas (Politician) back to Alex Douglas or make it a redirect. This was an unnecessary move as there is no need for disambiguation. Users should be able to find any person without having to enter a disambiguator. Also the disambiguation is incorrect because "Politician" should not have an initial capital. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect to Alexander Douglas. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eulogies (album)

Non-notable recording, doesn't meet WP:NOTE or WP:MUSIC. Cerejota (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Evidence of coverage already in the article, and in the band article. --Michig (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUMS. If the artist is notable, generally the individual albums are notable. I don't see any reason why this one should be different. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 20:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes per WP:MUSIC#Albums for the 3 reviews in the infobox. An a note to Darth Mike , the actual quote is "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles", albums from notable artists are not automatically notable themselves, because of the first line, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Luckily this article has the 3 reviews, so that passes the significant bit. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm aware of that, that's why I said 'generally'. This article is sourced, so I see no reason why this wouldn't apply is all I meant. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 01:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lots of reviews and other sources, most of them not yet in the article. Research on Here Anonymous brings up lots of those. ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 00:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Ackwards and Belly Up

non-notable book, lacks 3rd party coverage, fails WP:BK Rtphokie (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there look to be some reviews that can be used to flesh it out. May meet WP:BK StarM 15:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Also looks like there's a review in Publishers Weekly, but it's behind a registration wall.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Not enthusiastic because it just barely seems to meet WP:N but with the current references given I can't see recommending its deletion. The article itself really needs a lot of work, it's all plot and poorly-written, but that's not grounds for deletion. -- Atama ^chat 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With reviews from Booklist, Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal and Voice of Youth Advocates in the EBSCO database I looked at the book clearly meets the notability requirements of WP:BK. The article needs to be expanded but the novel does meet WP:BK. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Thingg. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYG'z

This is still a NN band, have been refused speedy. Suggest salting after the inevitable deletion. roux 17:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BAND easily. Delete as non-notable band Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and G4. THF (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) – recreation of deleted material via deletion discussion. Notability issues still not addressed. MuZemike 20:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4). Concur with MuZemike. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the G4 tag to it as it has already been deleted as stated above. §hawn poo 01:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gloom (card game)

Very short article that gives no information about the card game in question. No references. Article was previously deleted after a discussion, but has been recreated. Unionsoap (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Quick note - the contents of the deleted article differs to the contents now (thus a Wikipedia:CSD#G4 speedy is not applicable). Seraphim ♥ 16:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've done a very quick search for sources and have found these which may or may not be reliable: [14], [15], [16] (Seems reliable - has an editor-in-chief), [17] (ditto), [18] (ditto). Based on this, I believe this article should be kept. Seraphim ♥ 16:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable commercially successful hobby card game - see sources above. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references are so easy to find, that I wonder if the nominator even tried to search, as requested according to WP:BEFORE. The criterion for deletion is unreferenceable, not merely presently unreferenced. DGG (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If references are so easy to find, why haven't any been added. This is a one line article; unless someone is willing and able to give it some content it should be deleted. Unionsoap (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note you don't get to !vote in your own AfD—your position is understood by your nomination. – 74 01:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, why didn't you do a quick search for them and add them? Sometimes even if you don't have the time to work on the article yourself, adding a few sources to a talk page will be much appreciated by whoever next comes across the article. Deletion is a last resort. Seraphim ♥ 23:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article already had the required number of reliable sources at the time it was nominated, so Unionsoap/Wordsuch's claims are false to begin with. DreamGuy (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Part of the essence of Wikipedia is that it is a community effort. Many articles have started as 'one-liners', posted by someone who may not have the time or ability to go further, or who may have found something interesting to cast into the arena for others to take up. Someone else will usually carry on the work, and others join in too. Lack of information becomes ground for deletion when it fails to identify the subject properly. Otherwise, it is cause for making the article a stub, provided other criteria are met. This does identify the subject. It is labelled a stub. There are now some references. Peridon (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and below. Peridon (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even without the additional sources other editors have found, this short article does have a source showing the game has won a major industry award, which clearly shows notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning a major award in its field makes a subject notable regardless of the size of the article. (More sources are only needed if the sources themselves are needed to establish notability. That is now covered by the award) - Mgm|^(talk) 01:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable by award and sources are shown to exist. Hobit (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as bad faith nomination -- person who nominated is a relatively new editor whose editing history seems to show major sockpuppet concerns. I pointed this out just as I pointed out the same about the person who put a prothis article recently as a revenge edit (User:Wordssuch, who was explicitly warned by an admin not to do such behavior). Based upon their actions and the original similarities in their User pages (created with short sentence to make the editor name not show up as a red link) I believe both editors to be the same, and most likely socks of some other user. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy - the admins blocked you all weekend for your unacceptable behavior, and now you are immediately back at it again. I nominated this two sentence article because it is has almost no content. Now I would like your apology for making false accusations against me and your uncivil behavior. Unionsoap (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think nominating articles I created for deletion without any sensible reason will somehow result in an apology for my having noted your suspicious behavior in other AFDs, well, you are sadly deluded. DreamGuy (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 20:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Davis (Female Comedian)

The CSD tag was removed by someone or other with the summary "do not disrupt", and I can't face squabbling over it.

This mis-titled article is abou a non-notable comedian, it seems to me. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 15:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding {{db-nocontext}} to a disambiguation page, repeatedly adding {{db-person}} to an article that is being worked upon and adding that tag once it has been removed is disruption. That tag explicitly says it should not be put back once it has been removed. Good to hear you don't want to squabble over it, though. Laura Davis has won a notable competition—Raw Comedy so the article should not be deleted. —Konsole4.2 (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's PROD tags that are not suppose to be re added when removed, not CSDs. However, an article's creator (that's you) is not suppose to remove a speedy tag. The proper course of action is to add the {{hangon}} tag and then explain why you believe the article should not be deleted on the talk page. However, in this case there is a weak assertion of importance or significance in the article so AFD is the proper venue for deciding if this article should stay or go. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I am not the creator of this article I only added refs—Konsole4.2 (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, when I first looked at the history, the page must not have loaded completely. Yours was the last I saw. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, but please do assume good faith, and not immediately accuse other editors of being disruptive. Perhaps they (I) made a mistake, or there's just a misunderstanding. Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will 'assume good faith' from now. By the way the other guy or myself ar e not here to destroy Wikipedia either, so there's no need to bombard articles with {{db-crap}} repeatedly thanks—Konsole4.2 (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the whole point of Wikipedia then ;) --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Claim to notability isn't supported by the underlying Raw Comedy article. The two sources (one of which appears SPS, the other of which isn't clear if RS) mentions Davis only in passing without biographical detail. At best, she's a BLP1E. THF (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Raw Comedy is Australia's biggest comedy competition. Its a part of Melbourne International Comedy Festival and I think it satisfies Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography—"person has received a notable award or honor". What's SPS, RS? It wouldn't be hard to find other sources like local newspapers which discuss this girl in detail, the two references I had added earlier are just two links I found by googling around.—Konsole4.2 (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by how few of the previous winners have gone on to independent notability, it's quite questionable whether winning Raw Comedy is a "notable award or honor," but even if it were, she didn't win: she got a consolation prize as the best first-time entrant that isn't even mentioned in the Raw Comedy article. That's twice-removed from notability. THF (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPS, WP:RS. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 18:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not the winner of a major comedy competition. This is the winner of a "Rookie of the Year" prize in a Minor League comedy competition, where the winners of the full competition advance on to more significant competitions. She may get there, but she hasn't done so yet. Eauhomme (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because an editor's made a good faith assertion that the article is being worked on--but without prejudice to a future AfD. See WP:DEMOLISH.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, and un-connected with the AfD, I'd suggest re-naming this article to Laura Davis (Comedian). We wouldn't call an article "John Smith (Male Comedian)", would we?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it should be Laura Davis (comedian) if anything. THF (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or that. :) But the main point I wanted to make is that I think the AfD is premature while the article's still being actively edited.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the article isn't being actively edited, and one cannot manufacture notability out of thin air, but someone contact me on my talk page if the article miraculously improves in the next five days. THF (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the award and the public speaking appearances are (just) enough to get over the notability hurdle. WWGB (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see little reason to delete if users can be perswaded to add to it. Its a close one though. Definatly needs to be Moved. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lordco

A speedy tag and PROD tag were both removed without improvement. This article has no reliable sources and dubious notability, and strong overtones of advertising. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Weak Delete. It's hard to believe that this chain isn't notable within British Columbia, but I've only found this and this, which wouldn't quite get them over the WP:BUSINESS hump. But surely there's more out there, and a better researcher than me would change my !vote. THF (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week ~~Keep~~ Delete as stated above probably notable in Canada and as stated those are the only 2 links found within google news §hawn poo 02:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I nominated the article, and I live in British Columbia. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete dubious notability. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "History" section about the subject just included events before 1997. If nothing else about the current status of this company can be found, then delete it. Alexius08 (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Probably large enough to be notability. one of the well established principles here is that notability is permanent,and if there are sufficient sources to show it for the 90s, that's good enough. DGG (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability is proven through reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:CORP notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of citations from reliable sources, which are required by the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is a copyvio, also the first edit[19] came with it's own notability tag. I think they may be a fine company but there is a lot of digging needed to find sources per WP:CSB. No prejudice towards recreation. -- Banjeboi 11:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SOMEWHAT ROUGE DELETION OF COPYVIO. It's not really blatant copyvio, but chunks of copyvio wrapped up in ad copy and horseshit ("If you love Jennifer Lopez and heavenly-smelling scents, no doubt you’ve already amassed a collection of crystal bottles bearing J.Lo-endorsed fragrances," seriously?) don't make for much of an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits (Jennifer Lopez album)

Another crystal album, without title or release date. I try not to hold the fact that it is terribly written against it, but this is so bad, it's hard not to. —Kww(talk) 14:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you might have a look at WP:ATA, especially WP:JUSTA is most interesting. Don't you think so? --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it will pop up very soon again anyway. Why then double the work? Cut it down to the facts, look for additional sources and don't throw the redlink editors who'd been working on the article out of the boat. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - It doesn't exist. There is no telling what will be on it when (if) it does exist. The content that makes up this "article" is pure speculation, it walks all over every Wikipedia rule and convention. It's that simple. Delete it, and when (if) it does come to pass, then write the article. It makes so sense at all to fill Wikipedia with non-sense articles about things that simply do not exist. Proxy User (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, a release date is stated and sourced in the article as April, 29. Additional sources can be found easily: [20] --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced to IMDB, which is not a reliable source. AceShowbiz.com is a blacklisted site, so it cannot be used as a source for information, and the other sources use sentences like The song is speculated as one of the materials on her upcoming third compilation album Greatest Hits. Speculation is not usable as a source.—Kww(talk) 16:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, wrong. See: Greatest Hits (Jennifer Lopez album)#Release history. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.jenniferlopez.com/news/hookied-on-you contains no release date or album title.
http://www.rap-up.com/2009/02/23/new-music-jennifer-lopez-hooked-on-you/ says may appear on her greatest hits album, scheduled for a spring release.
http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=EICP-1103 provides no title or tracklist, and labels the information about release date as "subject to change without prior notice"

Please don't describe things as providing information that they do not as a defense for keeping articles. None of the sources used in this article are sufficient. They all use language that describe the information they are providing as unconfirmed or speculative, and don't provide key information necessary to building an article.—Kww(talk) 17:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News about this album go back to November 2007 and a release date for between February and April 2009 was announced last November (see official website). I'm not a fan of her (quite the contrary), so you may delete it. I don't really care. But the article will come back very soon. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 17:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, of course: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Still from the Block. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this looks to have been created independently, so I don't think it's eligible for speedy deletion as a repost.—Kww(talk) 20:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we could delete it for a third time. And a fourth and fifth time sure to follow. It would be somewhat more intelligent to a) just leave it be since the release is just delayed from Feb 9 to Apr 29 - Sony BMG had it already listed for the Feb date, that's where the Still from the Block title comes from, including a press release - or b) make a reasonable section in the Jennifer Lopez main article and redirect from both, Still from the Block and Greatest Hits (Jennifer Lopez album) to that very section until the album has been released. I guess it's way easier to nominate and delete it again, than to put a bit of work into it, but laziness should not rule Wikipedia. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 20:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the effort into identifying articles that fail inclusion standards, nominating them for deletion, and taking the time to double-check and refute arguments for inclusion is not a sign of laziness. It isn't a matter of doing so rather than "put a bit of work into it": the information necessary to build an article about this album does not exist.—Kww(talk) 20:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, gor for b) - until Apr 29. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 20:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All properly sourced and verifiable information that is available is at Jennifer_Lopez#Compilations (2009-present).—Kww(talk) 21:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know that this is not true, and neither exist any redirects. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim the redirects exist. We know she is planning on releasing a greatest hits album. We don't know the tracks. We don't know the title. We don't know the release date. We don't know if the leaked tracks have anything at all to do with a greatest hits album (and, in fact, logic would suggest that a leaked track would not be on a greatest hits album). "Lopez will release a greatest hits album in April or May 2009" is the sole verifiable statement, and even it is a bit hard to support. Lopez has indicated that she plans to ... would be better than Lopez will ....—Kww(talk) 21:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A comprehensive look on all facts and rumours incl. lots of sources can be found here: [21] - that's where this recent article is copied from. I guess a nice paragraph could be built out of it, if not a whole article. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps: Another overview is the starting post here: [22] --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if you restricted your searches and investigation to reliable sources, you wouldn't exhibit such apparent confusion as to what material is suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. The content of blogs and fansites is completely irrelevant to the discussion. When you find material based on reliable sources that can actually be included in the article, please come back to discuss it.—Kww(talk) 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if you would look at the two links above and at the cited sources there, you would understand what I'm talking about. Of course it's fansites, but they give you a sourced overview on the topic. Again, laziness is no excuse. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First: quit calling me lazy. It's offensive and uncalled for. Second, I looked at your sources. They are fansites and blogs. They do not provide links or references to reliable sources, they provide references to announcements, statements, and confirmations without providing links to reliable sources that substantiate those announcements, statements, and confirmations. If you think there is material in reliable sources that should be included, please provide a pointer to that reliable source. Until then, please stop offering unreliable material in support of your argument.—Kww(talk) 23:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Record company, stating Apr 29: [23] Interview with producer: [24] Lopez herself: [25] not to talk about the press release from December, including a tracklist and announcing it for February - that's even in full in the nominated article (smell the copyvio?). That and some more bits make much more than that small sentence at Jennifer Lopez. Don't you think so? --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 23:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

タイトル未定（ベスト盤）初回生産限定盤 means an untitled limited release: still no tracklist.
The interview you quote says C: The Greatest Hits album is going to have about 3 to 4 new tracks on it. ...[but]... To our knowledge, yeah. But you know, the label doesn’t really keep us posted indicating that the speaker is aware that he hasn't got reliable information.
If you consider Singersroom to be a source, it provides some vague information about possible new tracks, and the nugget I agree with:Jennifer Lopez’s “Greatest Hits” is slated to hit stores sometime this Spring.
The contents of http://www.sonymusic.co.jp/eng/ cannot be verified, as the page is dead.
The Latina article is about an album with an indeterminate number of new songs where she isn't even certain what year it will be released in.

As I said, please come back when you have some reliable sources for any information more detailed than "Lopez will release a greatest hits album in April or May 2009".—Kww(talk) 00:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to disagree.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 00:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I smell copyvio big time. MuZemike 21:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it even gives its sources. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with DitzyNizzy per WP:CRYSTAL §hawn poo 21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point you to an intersting read, WP:ATA, which inludes interesting topics such as WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTA. What do you think? --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given a Japanese release date, and it's sourced. Thankyoubaby (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. The only thing that is semi-referenced is a possible Japan release date, not exactly "significant coverage". Oh, and hexaChord, WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is only an essay, not a policy or guideline. You may want to have a read of the little box at the top of that page before you go around pushing your opinion onto everyone else's reasons for deletion. IMHO of course. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's only an essay (a good one btw.), otherwise I would've addressed this to other boards. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 00:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.--Sloane (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another two cases of WP:VAGUEWAVE... --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 04:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another case of a lone editor badgering everyone who disagrees with him in AFD... Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's more than you wrote about the article - what a shame. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 05:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. also, it looks like there might be copyright violations in the replication of text. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: multiple copyright violations from [26] and [27]. There's a difference between citing claims and copying word-for-word articles. These were well published before the wikipedia article creation. JamesBurns (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. Lugnuts (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was both speedy deleted at the request of the author (CSD G7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Eberwein

Also Steve Rothermel

I don't think that these people are sufficiently notable to have their own articles. It's all unsourced, and isn't really that "important". Also some serious COI issues, as the author claims that the subjects are themselves and their wife (see comment below). ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 14:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You can delete us I added some sources from NBC and Tv.com. I wasnt aware that you needed to me a criteria to be included in this. I had people asking why we didnt have our own pages so I figured I would make them for myself and my wife as we were on Tv in over 13 countries. If you feel we need to be deleted fine. --Sleepernutz (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really a COI issue when there is nothing being promoted Just delete the pages I'm fine with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepernutz (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're happy for the pages to be deleted (and that would be very helpful!), please type {{db-g7}} at the top of both articles, this will let admins know that you'd like them to be gone. Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 15:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terang college

Very short, unreferenced article that that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Unionsoap (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a secondary school, and all secondary schools are in practice considered notable in Wikipedia. I wonder if the nominator even tried to search, as requested according to WP:BEFORE. The criterion for deletion is "unreferenceable", not merely "presently unreferenced." References for these can almost always be forund, though it is more difficult for schools in some countries, and may take looking at print.DGG (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please show where the Guidelines say that "all secondary schools are notable". I can't seem to find that one. Unionsoap (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a 150-year-old school[28] with an extensive history. Such schools should be researched and their page expanded not deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- this school is definitely notable and sourceable. Here is another source: [29]. Reyk _YO! 22:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No major notability established. Minor roles generally do not assert notability, especially for two distant and minor spells. The reliable citations point to her biographical background, but of nothing else. P.S. Stating that you are keeping solely for inclusionist principles is a guarantee that the vote is discounted. Please use valid rationales when commenting. seicer | talk | contribs 04:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Phoenix

AfDs for this article:

The majority of the article is about her family (copied from the Joaquin Phoenix page) and not actually about Liberty herself. The remaining content does not establish any notability (two minor roles, one an unnamed role, in a single episode of a TV show. Delete

P.S. The version that was deleted back in 2005 when AFD was still VFD is nothing like this so G4 doesn't apply. Mgm|^(talk) 13:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge ~~Merge~~ - Or delete. Non-notable except for being the sister of a crazy guy. Proxy User (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'd have to chosen to merge myself, but there is no obvious target since she has several brothers, all of whom would make good merge targets (not to mention her parents). - Mgm|^(talk) 20:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Well, River is dead, so the nutty one comes to mind. But if there isn't a strong urge to merge, delete... I don't feel strongly to keep it, her history such that it is seems to indecate she's not planning on spending too much time in the public eye. I probably shouldn't have piped up on this at all...Proxy User (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable low profile individual, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Not a good redirect candidate, as the subject will likely never merit more than a one-sentence mention in any of the articles about her family members. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am, and will always be, an inclusionist. I do not understand the deletionist perspective. --Thorwald (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what you may believe, I actually am an inclusionist too and I am particularly focussed on filling up WP's coverage on young people and children which others often don't find significant enough to write about, which is what brought this article to my attention. If I believed it was in any way salvageable, I definitely wouldn't have nominated it. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Liberty Phoenix is a legit search for a prospective researcher. Even if she is only a one sentence article, that is enough. She may be a lower-end-notability (not a no-notability) celebrity. Wikipedia is not paper, so what is the rush to exclude a border-line notable article. Someone created this article, so Liberty is notable to someone. Others have edited the article, so she is obviously notable to more. Many have searched for her on Wikipedia. Why? Because she is notable to them. I am not an inclusionist nor a deletist, but why merge and redirect when a wikilink from River's page will address all of the above concerns. This article, as is and where is, meets the present and future needs of wiki-users. Delete it and the information is lost. How does that improve Wikipedia? Esasus (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that someone or something is notable when one or more people create or look for the article is inherently flawed. There've been plenty of groups of people who've been trying to use Wikipedia to advertise their books, films and other creations. By that reasoning we should throw out the rules on spam too because a couple of people want the article to exist. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I respect the inclusionist perspective, even if I don't always follow it myself, so I'll leave it to others to counter that position. However, this is a BLP article on a marginally notable/non-notable person who's basically a private figure, barring some child acting roles several decades ago. That being the case we have a positive duty to respect her privacy and avoid the libel risk to the subject that comes from maintaining a marginal Wikipedia article. BLP articles face stricter scrutiny per foundation policy, and it's right that they do so. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability is not temporary" Esasus (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and if I thought those minor acting roles established notability, I would have !voted differently (they fail WP:ENTERTAINER). The subject of my second comment is not notability but the public/private status of the subject, and that does expire. Articles on non-public figures face higher standards than articles on public figures. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For "Notability is not temporary" to count, someone has to be notable to begin with. "1st brownie" is not a significant role and there is no evidence the other role is either. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Corporations

I can't make head or tail of this article... I don't think it's encyclopedic, anyway. I'm also concerned that it may have been copied (either that, or it sounds essay-like). ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 13:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay-like, inherently synthetic, inherently POV Sceptre ^(talk) 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not ripe. Whatever this article is is still under construction; it just got created moments ago. It's possible this will turn into something encyclopedic and NPOV (though it will need to be retitled Criticism of corporations), it's possible it remain a mess. Tag it and then delete it later if it doesn't improve. THF (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. It's still under construction. Alexius08 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold off per the above arguments. Although if the article is going to spend a long time in its current, unfinished state I'd suggest userfying it. Reyk _YO! 22:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. If Napzilla wants to turn this into an article, s/he should do so in her/his user space. Article space should not be used as a sandbox. Deor (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all of the text of comes from the Corporation article, where it has been included for months or years. If it was good enough for that article, I don't see why it can't stand on its own, even if it's still poorly structured. We can always bring it back into the main Corporation article if it doesn't develop well. --Jonovision (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV. The "criticism" section fails the baseline for such sections set out by WP:CFORK. In this case, the correct course of action is to incorporate it into a neutral study of corporations; the wrong course of action is to split it out. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, thanks pointing out the guidelines. After reading them, I think this article holds up to a neutral POV. It doesn't contain criticism in a purely negative sense. The points contained in the article are critical in that they examine the corporate form and make arguments both for and against. --Jonovision (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that the criticism section of this article was not spun out because there was opposition for the content in the main Corporation article. This content has been through many revisions over the past couple of years, and has reached a point where it's stable (albeit terribly ugly). I believe that the motivation of the user who spun out the content was so that the content could be expanded and improved without causing the already lengthy main article to get even longer. --Jonovision (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's certainly room for an article about criticism to corporations in general. We should at least give it a little time to develop. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I probably should have explained the basis of this article better. I was working with some others to improve the "Criticism" section of the Corporations article, and one of the things we all agreed on was that a separate article should be formed to keep from bloating the length of an already substantial article. While the basic criticisms of corporations can be stated succinctly in a few paragraphs, several users had expressed a desire to discuss more specific criticisms, such as feminist criticisms, environmentalist criticisms, etc. While such criticisms would be worth including, the concern was that they would extend the original article on Corporations to obscene lengths. Therefore, it was thought that creating a separate article where the criticisms of corporations from multiple perspectives could be described would be an ideal alternative. When I cleaned up (and condensed) the Criticism section of the Corporations article, I took everything that was there and transferred it so that the people who had expressed an interest in expanding the original criticism could do so here. I agree that it's a bit hazy in its present form, so I tried to clean it up a bit. The important point is that none of the content proposed or included in this article was ever rejected from the original, let alone accused of NPOV violations. Length, not objectivity, was the primary consideration.

Napzilla (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - possibly a dangerous content fork, but I would give it the benefit of the doubt at this point. It seems notable, and has some citations, so I would (tentatively) keep it. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per authors request below. Non admin closure. §hawn poo 01:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bagshot Bank Protest

This is a very minor news article, not an encyclopedia article. It presents a problem, as per WP:NOT#NEWS. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but equally events could continue, for example similar protests elsewhere, making it a bigger story. It should be given time. I notice that they story also exists as part of the Bagshot page, where it is clearly relevant as part of the history of the village. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.210.153 (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable news event. Proxy User (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS. Not even clear it belongs in Bagshot. THF (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created the page, and I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedLavaLamp (talk • contribs) 17:56, March 7, 2009

I added the speedy delete tag per {{db-g7}} on the page as I confirmed that redlavalamp is the author.§hawn poo 23:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. Seraphim ♥ 15:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dashte Khawab

This appears to be a combination of a news story and a new book promotion. I don't see where it aligns with any Wikipedia editorial requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a copyright violation, look at http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=166166. Delete it. LovesMacs (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooh, Twinkle works with that too. I've marked it to be speedily deleted as a copyright violation. Loves Macs (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily delete per CSD G7. Non admin closure. §hawn poo 06:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VUVR

AfDs for this article:

Note: I deleted the album because it was a mere track listing with no contributions from other editors. The external links in the band article make me question whether it is keepable, so I'll leave that one up for discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You may be able to have this article speedily deleted by replacing it with {{db-blanked}} since you are the author. Lets drink Tea 19:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 Eauhomme (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added the speedy delete tag CSD G7 to the page and linked to this article.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Body Language (Kylie Minogue album). MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret (Take You Home)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Extremely limited promo release. Never an official single release Paul75 (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to "I Wonder If I Take You Home" or Body Language (Kylie Minogue album). --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 00:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-charting non notable song. JamesBurns (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Body Language (Kylie Minogue album), non-charting promo single. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect Songs real title is a plausible search term. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable song. JoannaMinogue (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fever (album). –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fever (Kylie Minogue song)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Limited promo release only, never an official single. Poor article largely of unreferenced OR Paul75 (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esradekan, have you read the article?:):):) The song was covered by Leah Dizon (whoever that is.) I feel like it was also played on the radio in the UK, but can't find out what happened to it here. Sticky Parkin 12:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/merge Songs covered by notable artists are specifically named as a criterion to keep in WP:MUSIC#Songs. That said, with the lack of sources and the general lack of content I'd rather see it referenced and put into context onto the album article. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there's lots of media coverage for it being the title track of a hit album, plus being covered and released as a single by another notable artist. Not to mention Kylie's own promo single - which sure has had some media echo, too. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 00:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a promo or radio only single is not considered notable under Wikipedia guidelines. Paul75 (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was released as a (whatever) single by two notable artists. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 06:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fever (album) - essentially just a garden variety album track. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Fever (album). No evidence it charted. JamesBurns (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. JoannaMinogue (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/weak delete, no chart history, looks like there is some OR in the article too. A-Kartoffel (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Impossible Princess. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Girl (Kylie Minogue song)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Limited released demo only, never released as a single Paul75 (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Impossible Princess as it has been included to several of her albums, but was recorded in the sessions for this album and later has been included to the bonus disc of the re-release. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 23:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-charting non notable song. JamesBurns (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unremarkable B-side. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - non notable song. JoannaMinogue (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable b-side. A-Kartoffel (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I really urge the parties to discuss a merge at the talk page. MBisanz ^talk 08:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of virus

The entire content of this article is either trivia and speculation, or belongs on wiktionary. The non-trivial content is included in virus and wiktionary:virus entries already Wnjr (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The explanation of why 'viri' or 'virii' are incorrect pluralisations is clearer and easier to understand here, as it is much more detailed. An explanation in such detail does not belong in a dictionary, nor does such etymological detail belong on the article on viruses, as it puts undue weight on a tangential topic. The article references a number of appropriate sources, so the concern over speculation seems unfounded. JulesH (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per JulesH, however this is just one case of an incorrect plural, often from Latin or Greek roots (octopi springs to mind) so maybe there is scope to expand this to include others. pablo_hablo. 11:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Reads like an essay or original research. The tone of the article is too loose, if it were summarized it would make a good couple of sentences in the virus article, which is where it belongs, and the amount of coverage it warrants. Sticky Parkin 13:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What, is Wiki running short of disk space? One could make a good case for not having half the articles in Wiki, on the grounds that any of them have various faults or that we really only need to cover (insert editor's individual pet subject here). I am pretty sure I could make a "trivia" case against at least 10% of Wiki's content. Trivia is knowledge too, in fact, calling it trivia is essentially a value judgement, saying that someone else's knowledge and concerns are unimportant. This is useful information and covers subject matter that is often subject to mistakes and false assertions. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, not wiki. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Virus While we're not running short on disk space, it's still a bad idea to have this article. If we allow this, we're going to get articles about every oddball plural in English and perhaps in other languages too. We don't need to banish it to Wiktionary either. The fact it's a FAQ answer means people frequently wonder about it, so giving the answer on the article about the subject is reasonable. It just needs to be summarized. The sources are already explaining it properly. If they're not giving it your own interpretation would be original research. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge by adding a couple of sentences to the "Etymology" section of Virus. No need for a rambling stand-alone article. Deor (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly trivia. Proxy User (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and move to Latin nouns in English, which would be a useful and well-sourced article to be written, and I'm surprised something like that doesn't already exist. (If it does, and I haven't found it, then Merge this into that.) But this as a standalone makes no sense. THF (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems like a notable enough topic. It would be a distraction in the Computer virus article which would be the logical place to merge. It would also be lost in a longer article on Latin plurals. Redddogg (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent example of a word history. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify why it should be here, not on Wiktionary? Stifle (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mother of God. Delete. Merge with virus, or some article about linguistics. This is NOT notable enough to warrant an entire article. Macarion (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sticky Parkin. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:DICTIONARY §hawn poo 05:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merging to Virus isn't going to work well as that article is already 100KB (see Wikipedia:Splitting#Article size). Even the intro section has been forked off in an effort to keep the page size manageable. The sources cited in this article amply demonstrate the grammar of this particular word has been a matter of significant interest independent from the word's denotative meaning (that is, actual viruses/virii/viridae/whatever). — CharlotteWebb 14:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as THF suggests. This is not encyclopedic information in any possible sense. DGG (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I have restored the Rescue template because one of the nomination reasons was The entire content of this article is either trivia and speculation...speculation or speculate is defined in Wikitonary as # (intransitive) to make an inference based on inconclusive evidence; to surmise or conjecture. Since the rescue template is meant to attract more references...it is for this reason that I put the resuce template on.--Smallman12q (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thou shalt not delete me. Viridae ^Talk 20:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any serious, policy-based reason for keeping this article? Stifle (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary and redirect to virus article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICTIONARY). --Sloane (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Transwiki a copy of this should exist at Wiktionary in some form at any rate. However, words can be encyclopedically dealt with, with a treatment of the word's history and origins. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No problem with transwikification to an appropriate outlet. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Beautiful example of "recording the knowledge of the world". Informative treatment of etymological origins and related terms in Greek and Sanskrit, insightful juxtaposition with plurals of other Latin nouns, interesting stray into mass nouns, factual, concise, to the point. The article is highly encyclopedic, it's way too simplistic and plain wrong to denounce it as a mere dicdef. This information has no natural home in specialist articles on the biological agent or computer ~~vira~~, oops, viruses - leave alone problems of keeping these articles at manageable sizes. Trivia - (Wha..!?), after reading the article who would honestly reply affirmative that "answer subsequently sounds familiar once revealed" - no way. If we are "going to get articles about every oddball plural in English and perhaps in other languages too" I would warmly welcome them, even if they have not yet reached the same mature stage as this article. The page has survived an earlier VfD in its infancy, fortunately people then could see the potential. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good example of why wiktionary should not be the default for articles about words. This is much more then a basic dictionary definition and should be further expanded to outline the history of usages and possibly dissect the differences of uses by culture, if possible. -- Banjeboi 11:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge/redirect any info here that's reliable and not already on the appropriate articles. DreamGuy (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing should be transwikied to Wiktionary if it contains information that is not best presented in a dictionary definition format. This obviously goes further, and the result would be loss of data. And this is easily long enough and has enough separate references to be broken out of virus as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is encyclopedic and interesting. — Reinyday, 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because you find it interesting doesn't mean we should keep it. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's got plenty of verified content that is beyond the scope of Wiktionary. Merging everything to the parent article would give undue weight to the significance of the word relative to the subject. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is exactly why Orange (word) exists independently of its primary denotative meanings. There is significant linguistic interest in the word, but it is not directly related to the color or the fruit to which it most commonly refers, so it would be improper and awkward to merge with either of them. — CharlotteWebb 18:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That (Orange looks to me the perfect example of dictionary content, which has no place in an encyclopaedia. Wnjr (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, actually "dictionary content" usually looks like this (but without the pictures). Curious, would you also argue that none of these or indeed these have any place in an encyclopedia? — CharlotteWebb 14:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - well-referenced, it's exactly the sort of thing academics discuss - I know from a discussion this very week with my co-workers! More importantly, this is the sort of thing a high school or college student would like to find, and find only here in Wikipedia. I aslo agree with CharlotteWebb, that this is the sort of thing that ought to be in an encyclopedia, not merely a dictionary. As Explodicle wrote above, it has "verified content ... beyond the scope of Wiktionary," which necessitates the existence of this article. Finally, as Power.corrupts suggests, this is an example of disseminating knowledge to all. This may be the first time that I've ever argued to keep when DGG has suggested otherwise. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge - I agree that this is the sort of information Wikipedia can be useful for, but, like the plural of octopus, it would be better off in the virus article. (Even for orange, would it really be all that harmful to have info about the fruit and the colour on the same page?) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardem

Obviously a hoax, based on Camden, NJ, as the map shows. Unfortunately CSD doesn't apply to most hoaxes. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (obviously). This article will no doubt be included in Wikipedia once hell has frozen over, but until then it's a pretty badly thought out hoax... - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know that it has already frozen over, don't you? Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Argh! You mean WP:SNOW is rendered obsolete? My head hurts... - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, as of 7 centuries ago. Anyone who knows xyr Dante, or even xyr Niven and Pournelle, should be reluctant to use that metaphor. That will be one of those ice cream headaches, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No google hits for a "Cardem New Jersey" in any real or fictional universe. Fails WP:V and WP:MADEUP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and someone should look to Snow this, it is pretty blatantly a hoax. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoaxalicious. Edward321 (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. shirulashem (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as feeble hoax. "The most unseasonable snowfall was on May 3, 1989" - time for another SNOWfall today. JohnCD (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --Oakshade (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Map is of Camden, a small rearrangement to become Cardem. Alansohn (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoaxes are included under Wikipedia:CSD#G1, and there appears to be no reason to have to wait for this AfD to run its course. Alansohn (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quote from policy document: "#1 Patent nonsense ... This does not include ... hoaxes;" (emphasis in original), though G1 is, I note, misused on a number of CSDs (as policy would officially define it, at least). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It should be WP:PROD as per this. shirulashem (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You mean it wasn't prod'd in the first place... presumably on the assumption that it was going to contested. Still it now works out quicker to let this AfD finish. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, no PROD to begin with since it was brand new I figured the author would contest, so why waste the time. Plus, now it will be a speedy candidate if anyone tries to re-create. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Thomas Hill

There's no evidence that the subject of this article meets the notability criteria set out at WP:BIO - no sources are provided and the only claim of notability is a statement on the article's talk page claiming that Mr Hill was friends with General Patton. The article's creator has stated that Mr Hill was his grandfather ([30]) so WP:NOT#MEMORIAL may also apply. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No offense or disrespect intended to Hill or his descendants, but he fails to meet WP:BIO; two Purple Heart awards seems to be the only tenuous claim to notability, but I don't know how uncommon that is. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Also it's unreferenced, and I think the photos aren't of the subject but archive photos of the Normandy invasion. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per Wikipedia's standards and lacks references. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've removed the material that was an uncredited copy from the U.S. 9th Infantry Division article (including the caption for an image that doesn't even appear in this article). What's left reads like a copyvio of a local newspaper's obituary and fails WP:BIO in any case. Deor (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown. Edward321 (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N §hawn poo 05:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no reflection of course on Mr Hill himself, but two Purple Hearts in themselves are not enough to push this over the notability bar. WP:OR and WP:V are additional concerns. EyeSerene^talk 12:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Vacation (song)

Non-notable unreleased song that fails music notability guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable non-charting song. JamesBurns (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Song is notable as it is the song that the band chose to play for a reunion with former drummer Bill Berry; see sources [31] [32] [33]. JulesH (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being performed live doesn't make a song notable. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awardage, no chartage, no coverage, no reliable sausage = No article(age) Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, nothing else to say §hawn poo 06:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable song. JoannaMinogue (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreleased song, not notable. A-Kartoffel (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Gamefarm

Contested prod. I reiterate my prod reason for this nom: None of the sources that I could find here or here establishes any notability for this show - only trivial and passing mentions. MuZemike 08:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 08:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This clearly lacks any form of third-party reliable sources and therefore notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently the article has no sources and a quick Google brings up nearly nothing. The second link for me is actually this WP article! Does not meet the WP:N criteria imo and as already stated, no reliable sources -- Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 20:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nickelodeon Games and Sports for Kids as an incredibly unremarkable show which aired on that network during a short-lived attempt at original programming. The show existed, but there is no information online to be found on it; most of the segments on the program were either game company PR or imported from overseas game programming. Nate • (chatter) 03:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does have an IMDB page (also devoid of info). [34] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagetto (talk • contribs) 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails inclusion criteria as per WP:NOTE. No reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 08:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Software Craftsmanship

"Notability is in question. There are no verifying sources or wiki pages linking to this one" Jadekorm (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research, non-notable, something like that ;-) ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new movement within the software industry. It has a manifesto: http://manifesto.softwarecraftsmanship.org/ and conferences: http://parlezuml.com/softwarecraftsmanship/ and http://www.mutuallyhuman.com/2008/12/19/software-craftsmanship-summit It is closely tied to movements like Extreme Programming and Agile both of which are considered notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ade oshineye (talk • contribs) 08:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see new sources have been added or referenced in this discussion, but they are not independent as demanded by WP:NOTE. The issue is that this page lacks third party coverage and there is very little external discussion outside the proponents of the idea itself. - Jadekorm (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to Software Engineering. Not a notable topic until such time as it has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources.--Michig (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fore reliable independent sources, see books such as McBreen Software Craftsmanship: The New Imperative Addison Wesley Professional 2001 or Hoover & Oshineye Apprenticeship Patterns: Guidance For The Aspiring Software Craftsman O'Reilly (as yet unpublished in print form, but available online here), Robert C. Martin Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship Prentice Hall 2008. Clearly notable movement in the software development industry, attracting attention from major publishers. JulesH (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also question whether those saying this is non-notable bothered to check the notability of the subject before saying so. Links to sites selling or about all three of those books above turn up in the first page of google web results searching on the title of the article. Finding sources for this is trivially easy. JulesH (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes I did bother...but is there anything to suggest this is anything more than another term for Software Engineering? I looked at the conference and I see nothing in the presentations that distinguishes this as a distinct field. McBreen's book seems to have coined the term, but there's little evidence that I can see of widespread recognition. It's just as easy to find Google hits for "Software construction", but I doubt that we should have a distinct article for that.--Michig (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those sources are problematic. Except for McBreen, those authors themselves are signatories of the manifesto linked above. I think that prevents them from being adequate third party sources. And yes, I did research the subject before I submitted to AfD, so I apologize if there are glaring third party sources I missed. This article, however, has gone years without referencing them. - Jadekorm (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the authors may not be independent from the movement, the publishers are, and it is the fact that mainstream publishers have chosen to publish books on the principles of this movement that establishes its notability.

Also, this non-independence argument can be made about almost any specialist topic. I mean, who has written about LALR parsers other than people who are intimately involved in computation linguistics? Of course the sources about this movement come from people who are involved in it. That's always the case with specialist topics. JulesH (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You can delete this page if you like, but it's bad timing - this movement is gaining momentum, and the page will be back in some form or another before you know it -- MattWynne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.58.104 (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In such a case, it can be rewritten appropriately. However, WP:SPECULATION suggests we cannot make that determination at this time. - Jadekorm (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of independent coverage, e.g. of the 2008 conference. MattWynne's comment above sums it up: the topic is not currently notable. If it's notable in the future, then there will abundant independent coverage to draw from. However, future prospects do not make a subject notable now. —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to software engineering until this becomes independently notable as a WP:NEOlogism. It's not there yet. THF (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC), clarified 19:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification of my reasoning. 134 Google Books hits and 51 Gnews hits and a majority of them are referring to one or more of the books with the title, rather than the concept, and I didn't see any uses that automatically assumed that the reader understood what the term was referring to. It's still not widely accepted. That doesn't mean it doesn't merit a subsection in the software engineering article. THF (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. I just don't understand how a topic that has been the primary subject of books published by so many professional publishers can be considered non-notable. What's the problem? JulesH (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment after clarification. This is clearly not a neologism; we're talking about a phrase that has been used in the titles of several books since the original was published in 2001, and which has hundreds of hits in google books, google scholar and google news. This is a term in widespread use within the community it is aimed at. JulesH (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More sources. Perhaps these, although less authoritative on the topic, will be seen as more independent, as their authors had no prior affiliation with the movement. [35]; McConnell Code Complete 2nd Edition Microsoft Press 2004; Janert Software Craftsmanship [book review], in Software Nov.-Dec. 2003, IEEE; McBreen's book won a Dr. Dobbs Journal "Jolt Award" for the ideas it suggested[36]. JulesH (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More: [37] [38] JulesH (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I became aware of the Software Craftsmanship idea less than a year ago, although it echoed a lot of things that I had been thinking and practising (where practicable) for decades. Evidently it's an idea whose time has come. It would be rather counterproductive to delete the page now. Software Craftsmanship is an identifiable movement within software practice in general - simply redirecting to Software Engineering would not do it justice at all. The movement centres around taking pride in all aspects of the work: the tools, the materials, the techniques - and ways to perfect this mastery, which borrow heavily from traditional crafts like printing and from oriental martial arts disciplines. -- Immo Huneke
Keep. I believe JulesH has done an excellent job illustrating the notability of the topic. – 74 02:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sourcing appears to be very solid (4 books, including one from O'Reilly, which I think of as the single most important publisher in this domain). I don't see an independence problem here as people who agree on a topic each writing books that found publishers is more important than they all signed a statement about the topic. Hobit (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is over 3 years old and describes an important idea that has been the subject of several books over the last several years. Robert0122 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a distinction between Software Engineering and Software Craftsmanship, and it is the difference between them that is interesting. Ever since reading the books mentioned above, I have referred to myself as a Software Craftsman - it's on my resume! Steve Donie —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The topic has become a common point of discussion amongst software developers and clearly those promoting it (including myself) are mimicking the path of Agile Development. It is important because it's distinctive feature is that it promotes a more crafts-based approach than a scientific/engineering approach to software development, which is a radical departure from the prevailing methodologies of the latter 20th century, yet an obvious one given the degree to which most software is built to interact with humans.Falkayn (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I see a page with sources relating to the article title, though not necessarily its content. The defense seems to be argument by fiat or by anecdote, with most of the defenders admitting to WP:COI. That's specifically a problem in discussions like this. The problem is that without third party verification, this is a vanity page. - 68.20.1.120 (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Susan Tsvangirai

Delete or redirect to Morgan Tsvangirai. As the wife of a politician, Ms Tsvangirai has not established notability in her own right. WP:NOTINHERITED covers such situations. WWGB (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would propose a redirect to Morgan Tsvangirai, and perhaps merge some information in a section about the accident (or what it is, I've only read headlines so far). c h ¹⁰ · 08:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree. I think a lot of politician's spouses don't have their notability but are still very much notable figures. Colipon+(T) 08:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - it's a well-referenced article, I think being killed [dare I say iffily? :-)] like that is a decent basis for notability. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to ~~Murder of Susan Tsvangirai~~ Death of Susan Tsvangirai; the article is (and should be) largely about the event rather than the person. Keep it. It's a cinch that Wikipedia should have an article on this, and any rule that says otherwise should be ignored per WP:IAR and WP:SMARSHALLISRIGHT.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, I bet someone'll quote NOT#NEWS, and I'll pre-empt that by saying I think Susan Tsvangirai's murder is pretty obviously an event of lasting historical significance in Zimbabwe.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further comment, I've changed that to "death" rather than "murder" to avoid NPOV concerns. (But she was murdered.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec)All the news I've read say, it isn't a murder, just a car crash, with Tsvangirai's party MDC saying it isnt a murder c h ¹⁰ · 10:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually the MDC are suggesting that it could have been a murder.[39] Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Late wife of the Zimbabwean head of government. In comparison, we keep articles on people like Cherie Blair and Sarah Brown (spouse) without question, and treating Zimbabwe differently is systemic bias against developing countries. That she was killed in a road accident has brought her name to attention in Western press, but it is absolutely not ONEEVENT material. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I do think Cherie Blair and Sarah Brown are both notable on the basis of their own accomplishments, so I'm not convinced there's a parallel there.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a look at Mrs. Brown's article and I have to say there's very little notable about her if we removed a PM connection from the equation. There'd be just an early life, education and would she even have the label of "J. K. Rowling's friend" without Gordon? I'm just saying that there are millions of such women but we need some consistency – being the wife of a U.S. President or a UK Prime Minister cannot be more notable than the Zimbabwean equivalent or that of another country if there is information available on the subject. And in this case we have enough information and even enough for notability in her own right in my opinion. --Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 20:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or move somewhere Yes, she is the wife of the head of government. But at the moment, she's only notable for her death. Rename to a "death of" article or merge to Morgan Tsvangirai Sceptre ^(talk) 12:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is part of the history of the country. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the article show that she is not only notable for her death, but also for her role within the MDC and importance in Morgan Tsvangirai's life. This is a good example from the Independent [40]. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I weakly concur with the keep. DS (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per arguments above. She was, in many ways, a public figure in Zimbabwe – please ignore the rules, as I reckon this is a lady many people will expect to find an article about. --Eivind (t) 13:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, While Wikipedia:Bio#Family may state that family is not notable, this is a good case for WP:IAR.Smallman12q (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no need to ignore any rules. According to the article she was a prominent member of a political party, so she's not just the PM's wife. Family of notable people can be covered in a separate article if they do something notable themselves. If not, they're a likely redirect target. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The spouse or family members of a politician or public figure, especially one with a national or international reputation in their given countries are notable. Keep. Scanlan (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at the moment there is negligible material that is not either fleeting news and speculation or related primarily to her husband. (She was "very discreet and stayed out of the limelight"[41], ie had no particular political profile, with comments about 'mother' role being perhaps simply kindness to her friends and family.) If someone (Zimbabwean, please?) can flesh out this meagre portrait to show her 'leading' role, I'd welcome the page back. (Maybe do it quickly, and save us all the trouble of deleting it.) Earthlyreason (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per above (she was notable in Zimbabwean politics, she is known in Africa, she cared for and championed her husband when he was being beaten) see what develops in real life, develop article. Additionally keeping the article assists gender balance and ethnic representation on en.wikipedia. rkmlai (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gender balance? Ethnic representation? How does that matter? The only thing that matters is whether someone is notable. The only way we create balance and a fair representation is by treating all groups equally. We don't apply the notability criteria differently to different groups, and we don't keep articles on non-notable people simply because we might need to even things out. Aecis^Brievenbus 07:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - From what I am reading, in English, she held a lot of social power in Zimbabwean politics. That is notable. I don't know how much is reported differently in Zimbabwea v. US and Europe. We do not treat all groups equally. There is specifically a bias toward "printed media" which is a bias, a bias I share and that wikipedia calls RS. But it is a bias all the same. I say there are other biases present and that her being African, a woman, with social pressures to be not in the limelight, but was anyway, (as noted by the disdain Mugabe's wife receives in contrast) is notable. Notable because what she did, what she said and that she was hailed in her country.
    - Perhaps the above user is referring to the fact that there is no similar rush to remove Mrs. Brown or Mrs. Obama. There seems to be a general assumption in the "delete/redirect" camp that Mrs. Tsvangirai was unheard of before her death. Maybe she was to those in the U.S. or U.K. but she seems not to have been so in Zimbabwe or even Africa, which before we forget is a rather large continent and not one country. --Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 00:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morgan Tsvangirai. WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. I'm sure her husband loved her very much, but she's not independently notable for purposes of an encyclopedia, and she has not had a career or news coverage independent of him. THF (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Neither has Michelle Obama. Not trying to be cynical, don't want her deleted (she won't even be deleted) but she is an unknown with Barack Obama. --Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 18:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable figure in Zimbabwean public life. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I cannot understand why this was nominated, I can only assume it was one line that informed of her death at the time. The section before her death establishes clear notability, of the type I've been looking through Michelle Obama to find and cannot satisfy myself - other than her standing by her husband's side during his campaign, she doesn't appear to be in the league of, say, Hillary Clinton. Whereas Susan Tsvangirai appears to have achieved much more during her life, and like Michelle Obama, should probably stay based upon her high public profile in her own country. I think this is being decided upon by many with little knowledge on African affairs, of which I myself am no major expert. But I would still advise it be kept. Much of the above about the article not saying all that much has me puzzled – Michelle Obama'a article similarly breaks rules concerning notability and yet it would never in a million years be deleted. --Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 18:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Michelle Obama's notable for being the first African-American First Lady of the US, actually, but she's irrelevant to this AfD per WP:OTHERSTUFF.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Morgan Tsvangirai per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. --Tocino 21:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National notability in Zimbabwe means notability period as far as WP is concerned. Circeus (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable. Everyking (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Morgan Tsvangirai. Wives of notable people are generally not notable, probably with the exception of American First Ladies. Before her death, Susan Tsvangirai was (with all due respect) only the wife of someone notable, she wasn't notable in her own right. And what's notable about her now is not her role in Zimbabwean politics, it's her tragic death. And most coverage about that death deals with the question if it was a genuine accident. And that, in turn, is about Morgan Tsvangirai. In short: all the coverage about her is really about Morgan Tsvangirai. It's therefore better to merge the content of this article into Morgan Tsvangirai. Aecis^Brievenbus 07:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Not sure, and as you haven't detailed from whence your Zimbabwean knowledge has been derived, where your perceived level of 'notoriety' 'ab extra', of this individual has been developed? May I point out that, as Zimbabwe is, for all intents and purposes, a 3rd world country, with a failed economy, it could be rightly suggested that individuals/groups that would have better quality and substantially more information on this individual, would be unlikely to have good quality or reliable internet access or news media contacts, to ensure that this information is propagated to the general global community and therefore projects such as WikiMedia. As your own words commit you, if a spouse of the American President is 'probably' notable, then 'ipso facto', in a globally connected community project, such as Wikipedia, other Heads of State and Prime Minister's spouse's are also notable. It is my honest belief that, within the context of not having the full story on an individual due to oppression or 'information management' (read: censoring), we, as a community, should not preclude an article on that individual, as being notable, in this project. Bcollier (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the notability of the US First Lady does not inherently make all governmental spouses notable. The wife of the US president is infinitely more notable and significant than the wife of the president of for instance Palau. If that gives us a systemic bias, that's because the world has a systemic bias. Countries are not equal. So what is the point you are trying to make? Cut to the chase. Are you saying that she would have been notable if she had done what she has done in Zimbabwe, in a western country? The only thing that matters to us is whether there are sufficient reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If they do not exist (which is what you seem to say in your last few sentences), the person does not meet our standards for inclusion. Why there are not sufficient reliable sources is of no concern to us. Aecis·(away) ^talk 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ahhh ... so some animals ARE more equal than others!! Thanks for the clarification User:Aec is away/User:Aecis. Here I was thinking that as a GLOBAL community project, Wikipedia, was democratic and inclusive. So, from your confirmation, it is Communist and Xenophobic. Let me highlight this for you: ALL COUNTRIES ARE EQUAL, systemic bias or not (and what, WP should just reflect that bias from here to eternity ... give me a break!) - even the President of Palau and his spouse (though not currently noted within WP - but if a WP'ian had relevant information and believed that they were notable to them and Palauians, then WP:BOLD (and many more WP guidelines) allows, in fact encourages them, to contribute this article) are notable. The individual that this AoD is about, is notable, has enough information to survive this AoD challenge, and as time goes by, and more Zimbabwe individuals gain more access to the internet and are freer from oppression, this article will be improved with more quality and quantity of information. Plus there are heaps of secondary sources listed in the article, plus many more on this event and her life as a whole, that justifies, quite compellingly, this article. Also, please refrain from using we and us, like you have overriding power to. If you feel like using these pronouns, I suggest that you replace them and use the I and me ones. It is your opinion, not the collective's one, after all. Bcollier (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - And this is exactly what I'm starting to hate about Wikipedia. This project has dropped to the level of any random Pokemon fan forum. It's not about arguments anymore, it's about ripping comments out of context to make yourself look good. What you are doing, Bcollier, is making me say things I never said and using that to justify the most sickening accusations. If that's all you can do, I'm very disappointed in you. Thank you for sharing your vision of a perfect world with us. Now back to reality. You are consistently saying that we are gonna get a lot more sources about her and the oppression in Zimbabwe is keeping us from having more sources. That doesn't matter. Then write the article when there are enough sources, when the oppression is over. Wikipedia is not your soapbox, we're not here to reform the planet. If there are sufficient sources to establish Susan Tsvangirai's notability, she gets an article. And if not, she doesn't. It's that simple. Aecis·(away) ^talk 12:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        OK - lets NOT reform the planet (didn't think I had suggested that in any case). Let's state the facts here about this specific AoD. This article has plenty of secondary sourced material within it, it isn't just a construct of a single event and meets most other WP guidelines. It could do with some more work, no doubt, but there are what - millions of articles that need work (not a justification here, but still a fact). Let's remove the AoD and put a Content ambox or a stub reference in, requesting more work to be done on the article. Now, if making and having a constructive and meaningful discussion, where points of fact are discussed/debated and personal attacks are kept to a minimum (which was where we were before your last submission), if that isn't for you, then maybe you might reconsider your time spent on WP. I hope you, in your deliberations, come to the same conclusion as I, that all points of view should be heard and debated within talk/discussion pages/projects, even advocatus diaboli ones. I also hope you reflect upon what you wrote above, with a little regret. Happy to discuss further on our respective Talk pages. Cheers Bcollier (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per arguments above. I believe the subject is notable. Borgarde (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per User:Circeus. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 11:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most spouses of heads of state and government are notable, especially when they predominate media for a while, and I believe there could easily be an ensuing scandal. Star Garnet (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seeing as how there is likely to be an investigation as to whether or not the US had a hand in her death, I think that this article goes beyond "just the death of a spouse." Her death could have ramifications for years to come and also change the way certain deaths of foreign dignitaries are handled from a worldwide negligence charge. There were a bunch of errors on the article though in the reference coding, so I just went in and fixed them.
Strong Keep Notability established by the mysterious nature of her death and its relation to the current political situation in Zimbabwe. Also dying from a possible assassination is different fro just dying. People who get assassinated tend to have a reason for that and they deserved their own articles.--23prootie (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough reliable sources to establish notability.--Sloane (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball, anyone? Kittybrewster ☎ 00:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must say – it is coming on just a bit thick, yes. --Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 00:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely a notable international figure. I'm surprised it is even being questioned.--Lester 00:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me too... I'm sure nobody would have questioned the notability of Diana, Princess of Wales. Yet she only became notable through events concerning her marriage and death (also in a car crash)... --Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd agree with "Merge with Morgan Tsvangirai", except that page is 48 K already, but she is notable enough now. Mark Hurd (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MergeI think it will be enough to put a Level 2 headline to Morgan Tsvangirai, because of her death.Janisterzaj (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why'd this article be nominated for deletion while articles such Sarah Brown (spouse) can still have their place on wikipedia ? (And I'm not saying that it should be deleted either because she is notable enough). Remember, wikipedia is international and has no scope for any regional bias such as the one against this article. --Roaring Siren (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Circeus and Sjakkalle. youngamerican (wtf?) 16:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her death was important in the Zimbabwe crisis, and so she is important to Wiki! (Neostinker (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete/merge - even now after several more days, there is negligible material to show that she was independently notable, notwithstanding the kind words of leading MDC figures who knew her. To those who are anxious to avoid treating Zimambwe unfairly, please find some material of her significant contribution. There are already several references (BBC) to say she had no public profile.

And calls to include for parity with eg. Michelle Obama would logically lead to the automatic inclusion of the partner of any notable politician. Should we set up two pages every time a politician is added here? Some leaders' wives really are more notable than others. Earthlyreason (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Re "Should we set up two pages every time a politician is added here?": No, and nobody has argued for that either. However, the spouse of a head of state or head of government is usually a well-known figure in his or her own right, even if it's just for being the spouse. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The political and historical ramifications surrounding her death are enormous. LittleOldMe (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreed. This looks to be quite impactful and a thoughtful bio on her is appropriate. Her early life details can be filled in from obituary write-ups. We may need to pull in a translator to sort out the best publications and such. -- Banjeboi 12:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am trying to find something relevant about Mrs. Tsvangirai that is independent of her husband, and I just can't. So she helped him out in prison--that can be placed in Morgan Tsvangirai. So can the rather ambiguous fact that she appears at political rallies. Delete per WP:1E, which plainly states, if someone "essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." It is not bias against developing nations to avoid writing about persons with "no independent notability".--MrFish^{Go Fish} 18:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep close it already -- Y not? 20:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in part per User:Candlewicke's arguments, in part due to the high quality of the article and its sourcing, in part due to the continued shifting of arguments for deletion. If a clear argument for deletion cannot be made in the nomination, adding additional reasons as we go is just throwing things at the wall to see what will stick. This appears to be a continual problem on Wikipedia, especially with topics outside the experience by white college age North American males. Candlewicke's argument shouldn't even matter: the nomination should have failed even before we started comparing the subject to spouses from the UK or US. Place of residency effects only your knowledge of the subject, not its notability. T L Miles (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest common denominator (disambiguation)

I have no idea why this prod was contested. Unneeded disamb page with 2 items. Replaced links to page with hatnotes on each page pointing to the other. Atmoz (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would just merge it all into one (at Lowest common denominator). It is kind of redundant to have parts of Lowest common denominator in separate articles. Versus22_talk 06:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see what's wrong with the disambig page, it disambiguates between two different meanings of the same term. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See WP:MOSDAB; we don't have disambiguation pages for topics with less than three articles. Also, I'm kind-of concerned about the notability of the recently added second page, i.e. Lowest common denominator (computers). It seems to be a fairly simple commonsense application of the idiom wikt:lowest common denominator (meaning 2) to a specific topic that should be blatantly obvious to anybody who knows anything about that topic. Maybe it should be covered in compiler or a related article, but I don't think it warrants a standalone. JulesH (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a third possibility, namely the Wiktionary entry. It is also the obvious target for the redirect of Least common denominator which is an almost equally common version of the phrase. Hatnotes would get ridiculously complicated trying to cope with all of those. Anna Rundell (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MOSDAB and JulesH. THF (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace by hatnotes on the two articles. But do not perform Versus22's suggested merge: the articles are on completely different subjects. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the computers article, I'd say. LCD is a familiar grade school concept, so slang use goes beyond computing and really should be mentioned in the main article. WillOakland (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there's been no notice on the computer article and it's not an official part of this nomination, I think it would need a separate prod or afd. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and place hatnotes on each other. §hawn poo 04:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid disambiguation page with two valid bluelinks to two standalone articles. I was the one who contested the prod as disambiguation pages are not articles. WP:DAB does permit disambiguation pages with as few as two bluelinks - in fact, I understand there are over 6000 dab pages with exactly two blue links in Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then by tomorrow there will be over 6000 afd's §hawn poo 06:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with hatnotes. Shame we have to do an AfD for this sort of cleanup. SMSpivey (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Blonde (Paris Hilton album)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Paris Hilton's second album

Can't find a reliable source for title, tracklist, or release date. Blogs and YouTubes by the score, but nothing reliable. —Kww(talk) 05:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content together with Heiress Records into the main article, which already contains some data/sources about the BFF song. Oddly enough the only (gossip) source for Platinum Blonde is called "bizarre USA"... --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 05:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't an article on her next album been deleted recently under a different name? None of the info in the article is sourced, so you can't really merge any of it. TJ Spyke 06:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, the Kylie part is sourced and keepable. We may ask where the 2009 release date comes from.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 06:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and lack of concrete sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability of album not established WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. (And not my general dislike of Paris to begin with.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may enjoy WP:ATA, especially WP:JUSTA and WP:IDL. Just have a look! --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~But I avoided using my dislike of Paris Hilton, and instead used WP:CRYSTAL instead.~~ I couldn't think of anything else. Did you just want me to copy and paste verbatim from that page? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you throw around WP:ATA in a lot of discussions, Hexachord. It's not a policy, it's not a guideline, it's just an essay.--Sloane (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it makes a vote somewhat understandable if you not just point at WP:XY or say "per nom" or "per my close buddy". I've seen so many cases of people voting without looking at the article first, not to mention a brief look at the sources or doing a bit of own research. People even admit it! And since this is a discussion and not a simple vote, there must be something to discuss - beginning with the nomination, that should be more than one sentence. We might discuss this at a better place if you want. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 04:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out where people have admited to not looking at an article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL --Sloane (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only somewhat verifiable information in the article is that her "manager confirmed that the singer will be releasing her next album under her own label". The title is unverifiable, the release date is unverifiable, the tracklist is unverifiable. The Thaiindian News article is referring to the interview she gave on Kiss FM (the "which is reportedly set to hit stores later this year" is referring to 2008). --Amalthea 10:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CBALL. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CBALL all speculations --Smanu (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Hopefully) -- Okay, so I didn't source that many references. But I was relying on what had been posted on "Paris Hilton (discography)" page before; and now I am trying to find the sources again. Also, it has been shown all over the internet that this will be her new album's title, and the genres are accurate and sourced, the part about Kylie is accurate and sourced, and the part about which label is also accurate and sourced.
And I am looking for an accurate source for the track listings, and the tracks that I found weren't based on Youtube videos, only the times were. Plus, seeing as her album is already recorded, I don't think it's gonna take more than 9.5 months to find a label to release the album :S.
I'll post again once I find some more sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander.hugh.george (talk • contribs) 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexander, if you can find one reliable source for title and release date it would go a long way. As it is, the album fails the guideline at WP:NALBUMS about future albums. And about the release date, Hilton said in the radio interview in late September 2008 that it would be out in a couple of weeks. It's now 5.5 months later, and it still has no release date announced. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it didn't come out this year, and just calling the release date as 2009 is speculation. It doesn't hurt us to wait until there is something official. --Amalthea 01:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article overhauled. -- Banjeboi 07:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Paris Hilton's second album for now. Even if the entire project is scrubbed, which doesn't seem likely, that would be written about extensively. This album has been covered by reliable sources since her highly publicized jailtime in July 2007. I had little problem finding more sourcing and giving her popularity as a interview guest on all manner of television shows there seem little doubt that even more sources presently exist and more will become available. For those unaware she is also starring in her own reality show that features on of the tracks as the theme. Seemingly every project she does sells well despite the slumpy economy. The article has been cleaned up and is ready for moving to the generic title. When a reliable source publishes the confirmed title it can be moved to that. So we have confirmed tracks and summer 2009 - a few months from now - just not the title. This is what we have IAR for, there's little doubt that more than enough sourcing already exists so all that is in flux is the title. -- Banjeboi 07:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much to whoever it was that found all the sources. My itnernet wasn't functioning for the past 24 hours and I just got on now. So thanks a lot :) :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander.hugh.george (talk • contribs) 14:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above, it does mean the WP:NALBUMS guideline now, which reads: unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Thanks to all the sources added, it meets that requirement. Dream Focus 23:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the coverage here really is about Paris's second album. Let's take a quick look:

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/11/paris-hilton-se.html?xid=rss-hollywoodinsider-Paris%20Hilton:%20I%27ve%20finished%20my%20second%20album is indeed a reliable source for "Paris claims to have finished her second album." I'd have a hard time using it to support the claim that the album exists, because Paris isn't an independent source about Paris's activities.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/entertainment/tv/2009/03/01/8577431-sun.html doesn't mention the album at all.
http://popdirt.com/paris-hilton-rapping-on-second-album/71781/ isn't a reliable source, and doesn't say much of anything concrete even if you treated it as reliable.
http://www.bittenandbound.com/2008/12/02/paris-hiltons-new-album-already-in-trouble/ is a gossip blog.
http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/41386 is simply a report of what she told Entertainment Weekly in the first report: again, stands up for "claims to have finished an album", not for the actual existence of one.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=33176 is a gossip column reporting Paris's claim.
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/paris-hilton-warner-bros-cut-ties-before-second-album_100103114.html is a report of another Hilton interview, this time with the New York Daily News.
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/10/02/2008-10-02_paris_hilton_warner_bros_quietly_cut_tie.html is a gossip column, reporting the original interview that thaindian.com is reporting, and it is reporting on an album release date that has come and gone.
http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b55648_Paris_Singing_a_New_Tuneor_10.html is another direct Hilton interview, sourcing the fact that she is working with Storch.
http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/paris-hilton/news/40433-paris-hiltons-new-album again source the claim to be working with Storch.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/usa/article2242198.ece is yet another report on the same Entertainment Weekly interview.
http://www.intouchweekly.com/2009/02/pariss_new_album_its_a_rap.php is illegible, but once you get past that, it's sourced to an anonymous insider. It does have a Paris quote, reiterating her claim to have written every song all by herself.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10546590 is reliable, and repeats the problem of no one wanting to touch this thing.
http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?pid=699848&aid=788893 hasn't got anything to do with the second album.
http://newsroom.mtv.com/2008/03/17/paris-hilton-reveals-the-secret-of-her-music-career/ says nothing about the second album.
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/09/30/2008-09-30_check_out_paris_hiltons_new_single_my_bf.html is primarily about a single, but does claim that it will be on the second album.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/ may have said something, but who knows what? It's gone now.
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,,24755907-10388,00.html doesn't say anything but "due out in the new year", but with no label, that isn't a credible statement.

So, in summary, what we have reliable sources for is "Paris Hilton is planning on releasing a second album which she says has written every song and already finished recording. No record label has been willing to release it. Her two existing singles, "My BFF" and "Paris for President" are reportedly included." That's not an article ... at best, that's two sentences in Paris Hilton. Those two sentences are pretty much already at Paris Hilton#Recording artist. The article as it stands now is exactly the kind of rumor and gossip collection that WP:CRYSTAL is so effective at preventing. I certainly don't think that it's at all inevitable that a second album will ever be released.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I didn't add all these sources but the ones I did add certainly do discuss the album with the few exceptions, like Billboard, that are there to provide information about her last album for context. Secondly, you may have missed a few things. [42] which you state doesn't mention the album, does in fact say Hilton released a CD in 2006 and is "basically finished" with her next album, which she hopes will be out by the summer. "I'm just doing a couple more songs and as soon as I have time I'm going to plan out a tour," she said. "It's just hard with my schedule." No matter how you slice it, Hilton is one of the most famous people in the world. [43] which you characterize as a gossip blog is editorial run by the San Francisco Chronicle so also shows she is written about, even if gossip-like, by newsmedia worldwide, about this album no less. [44] and [45] also talk about this album that she is working with Storch, on this album. Etc etc. these sources do in fact general talk about this album, a future project so really how much do you expect, or add context discussing her music and her last album for context. The point is that the Hilton is subject to immense media attention no matter what she does. Unless the entire project is canceled, which seems unlikely, it has already been the subject of numerous interviews many of which would also be fine sources here. We don't have to beat this in though, it's clear there is a second album and music has already been released. We're going to have an article and the current one is NPOV and fine. As better sourcing, and official information allows the article will improve. -- Banjeboi 02:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expand, and source properly. I dislike Paris Hilton and "popularity" and "public interest" being seen as "notability" contrary to guideline. However, it does not seem Crystal when one can listen to tracks from the album. She can't sing, but her name will sell this tripe, now that it finally has a name. MTV, W-Online, People Magazine, Bitten and Bound, and others found through a google search. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reliable source to confirm the name. --Amalthea 00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yet. But that is a problem that can be solved by moving to the generic title and moved back once there is a source. -- Banjeboi 01:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Shouldn't that wait until there's something to say about this album? For all the apparent weight of this article, very little of it is about any upcoming album. It's got a lot of stuff on Paris Hilton, a lot of stuff about her first album, but all we know about the second album is still Paris Hilton is planning on releasing a second album which she says has written every song for and is already finished recording. No record label has been willing to release it. Her two existing singles, "My BFF" and "Paris for President" are reportedly included.. Far from enough meat to build an article about any second album from.—Kww(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually there is more than just that but we have articles with far less than this sit blissfully still while this one has attached to it one of the most famous people in the world whose every move is overly chronicled. If she doesn't make the album it will be written about extensively, if she does and it's a flop it will be written about extensively. I'm sorry but she's a media magnet doing interviews and appearances left and right. The minute she's done promoting her current reality show and wants to bring attention to this issue it will be covered even more. Just not seeing the big urge to delete here, unclear what damage to Wikipedia this is apparently causing. -- Banjeboi 02:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Entwistle

Does not seem to be very notable. We should not have an article about every criminal. One short mention in a list of criminals is not enough. I could not find more good sources about him. Prod was endorsed by User:B.Wind "WP:BLP1E - nothing to separate him from any other convicted murderer." but then removed by User:Oo7565. Apoc2400 (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Whole_life_tariff#Prisoners_issued_with_life_tariffs, as all the info in the article seems to be here, too. Belasted (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I've proposed is obviously the best choice. Can anybody directly disagree with me? Belasted (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong delete. BLP of the worst kind, quite aside from a blatant BLP1E. Wikipedia is not a database of criminal convictions. Incidentally, while I doubt it will make the slightest difference to the scheme of things I've pre-emptively {{NOINDEX}}ed this discussion. – iridescent 21:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note – I have removed all unsourced material that construes as BLP violations as shown here. MuZemike 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

did you try to source it? it is exactly that material which might possibly make him notable. It would seem that sources would be available.DGG (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A UK Google search on '"Anthony Entwhistle" + rape' only brings up a single mention other than Wikipedia mirrors, and that's just a two-sentence mention in a list of prisoners serving whole-life sentences. I don't doubt the accuracy (by definition, he's done nothing notable since long before the start of the internet, so online sourcing is going to be a problem), but I don't see anything remarkable enough about him to separate him from any other murderer – he has neither the "popular culture" notoriety of Ian Brady or Jeffrey Dahmer, nor was his case particularly unusual as with our most clumsily-named article Robert Chambers (killer), for example. Unfortunately, in a population of 7 billion there are a lot of murderers and sex offenders, and I really don't think Wikipedia is the best place to serve as a directory of them. WP:Notability (criminal acts) is an unaccepted policy, but I do agree with its primary thrust; "Perpetrators of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article. Perpetrator notability is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question". – iridescent 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added back in that he is a rapist (backed with a verifiable source that I found, of course), but I cannot find anything that backs up the other phrase that I removed: within weeks of his release from a seven-year prison sentence imposed for sexually assaulting two women. Otherwise, I stand by my removal of that phrase as it can be potentially harmful information about a living person. If someone can find a source to back that above phrase, and add it back in and include the source. However, I could not find it amongst the sea of Wikipedia mirrors that Iridescent noted above when I did the same Google search. MuZemike 04:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the article is concerned in general, I'm learning towards a weak delete as I couldn't find any sources that provide significant coverage of this rapist/murderer/rapist (I said rape twice because I like rape). Now, this all happened back in the 1980s, so there might not be much online to find; print sources may fulfill the notability factor. MuZemike 04:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note by nom: His "claim to fame" would be that he is on the list of 50 or so British criminals given a whole life tariff. Now we have at least two reliable sources supporting that. Stubbing this down to what the sources say would be acceptable for me. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not indicate more about this person, not notable enough. Versus22_talk 06:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - aside from total lack of real notability, this is an incredibly uninteresting person, it seems!! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And where were all of these Delete !votes when I nominated the far less notable Patrick Syring? THF (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake cloud

Lots of unsourced statements (possibly OR), all sourced statements are from one website and one New Scientist article. As far as I can tell, the author of the one website the article is based upon has no publications in any Peer-Reviewed journal, thus WP:Reliable sources is a factor. Having its own article gives undue weight to a fringe theory; it should at most be covered by a few sentences at earthquake weather. Running On Brains 20:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. DreamGuy (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article certainly needs improving, but I don't think removal is justified by the need for better sourcing. I cannot say whether it is a fringe theory or not, but more than one editor has contributed significantly to the article, which indicates some level of interest in the subject. I am not strictly opposed to a merger, but do not remove the article before the merge has been completed. --Macumba (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article makes reference to an additional source in-line ("SEMINARS of the United Nations Programme on Space Applications 16, 39-63 (2005)") and a cursory Google scholar search turned up several other publications [46] [47] [48]. The article already includes a skeptic disclaimer. – 74 00:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three of those four you mention above are either by or mentioning the same man: Zhonghao Shou. Except for the one article by Guangmeng Guo and Bin Wang, the entirety of studies on this supposed phenomenon have all been by one person, which is simply not right by Wikipedia standards. I also would be supportive of a merge to earthquake weather, as long as it is given due weight (a few sentences at most) and sourced properly and impartially.-Running On Brains 00:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the references for the specified articles? Although they might not use the term "earthquake cloud", at least some appear reasonably likely to support the theoretical process (e.g. Saraf, A. K. and Choudhury, S. (2005) NOAA-AVHRR detects thermal anomaly associated with 26 January, 2001 Bhuj earthquake, Gujarat, India.. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 26, pp. 1065-1073.; Morozova, L. I. (1997) Dynamics of cloudy anomalies above fracture regions during natural and anthropogenically caused seismic activities.. Fizika Zemli, 9, pp. 94-96.; Tronin, A., Hayakawa, M. and Molchanov, O. A. (2002) Thermal IR satellite data application for earthquake research in Japan and China.. Journal of Geodynamics, 33, pp. 519-534.). Also, peer-reviewed journal articles are a de facto reliable source indicating at least some community support for the ideas presented. The ultimate question isn't whether the theory is correct, but whether the theory is verifiable and notable; I think both have been established at this point. – 74 04:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. My entire issue with this article had been that it was written almost completely off the research of one independent scientist and one other paper by a duo, with no more reliable sources available. Google was unhelpful; I did not think to check the references in the the Guo and Wang paper. Assuming those papers actually say what their titles suggest (which I have no reason to doubt), it seems that serious research has indeed been done. I wish I could actually find those papers online so I could clean up the article; I'll see what I can do after my break. In short, Withdrawn. -Running On Brains 04:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article contains lots of useful and interesting information. Unionsoap (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)— Unionsoap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (disputed)[reply]

Funny, another brand new editor as of only a few days whose only edits have been to participate in deletion votes and who instantly create a user page so the red link on his name goes away. Same thing happened recently over on some other article being defended by the same guy. Curious. The messages on the user page seems to be a copy of that other user. That user was determined to be a sockpuppet and stricken, doing same here. It might be nice if we figure out who was controlling these socks and get them blocked.... DreamGuy (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy, I find reason enough to unstrike this !vote (not that I find its rationale particularly compelling). The user participated in article space before starting in AfD, and has 100+ edits, several of which passed a cursory review. If you can substantiate your claim of sockpuppetry then you should do so in the appropriate forum. Otherwise, this !vote (and your comment) will be given the weight they deserve. – 74 01:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New accounts typically aren't allowed to vote to avoid fraud. The edit history of this individual at the time th vote was made was very short and superficial, and most of the edits have been votes. Whether this is a sockpuppet (funn how people always just want to throw up red tape to avoid clear problems) are just someone new off the street, his vote (and your cranky response above) hold no weight. DreamGuy (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I find his behavior here less problematic than your own. Let it be; the closing admin will be quite capable of sorting it out. – 74 15:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy has been blocked. Just because I am new doesn't mean that I can't take part in a discussion. It is up to the closing admin to assign weight to the comments, not DreamGuy. Unionsoap (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR, WP:RS. Macarion (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the discussion. I won't strike your comment, but I will point out that due to your account's track record and the lack of rationale presented, your !vote is unlikely to be given much weight. You might find WP:VAGUEWAVE informational. Please feel free to reformulate your statement if you would like. – 74 19:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty odd comment. If you agree that this person's track record means the vote should have little to no weight, considering that this person's edit history (weak that it is) is substantially longer than that of a brand new account you defended above. Self-contradictory much? DreamGuy (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the amount of warnings etc. associated with this account, not an edit count. I suspect that the closing admin will take this information into account; I do not presume that I am allowed to arbitrarily cancel other users' !votes because I don't like them. Does that clarify your confusion? – 74 15:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it needs a lot of work, a huge references-overhaul... and it can't have that if deleted! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - certainly an article of interest, as there is much new insights here. Saying that, it does fall into OR, and unless more inline citations can be added to establish to the contrary, I guess it might have to go. Stefansquintet (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR only applies to unpublished research; the research in this article has been published in a number of WP:RS, so OR does not apply. Also, see the discussion above regarding other research in the field. – 74 20:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete by overwhelming consensus per policies and guidelines at WP:NFT, WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March to Highfivetown

Seemingly unremarkable game, article lacks assertion of notability. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 04:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. Absolutely no sources, fails WP:N, WP:V. Versus22_talk 06:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Versus22. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to publish recently made up games. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more to say §hawn poo 06:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Liga effect

The subject of this article is a neologism, the definition of which is sourced from a blog site, and not even from a specific blog post. The article itself deals with subject matter that is entirely subjective and does not take in mitigating factors in the comparison of the Premier League and La Liga. – Pee Jay 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I PRODed this. As WP:OR and synthesis. §FreeRangeFrog 03:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Improper information and/or sources. Versus22_talk 06:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the whimsy sources being the only ones to support its notability and, for that matter, existence. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - made-up, OR, etc. Basically an English footy fan going "nyah nyah, our league's better than yours" based on cherry-picking a few random stats -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - recreation of previously deleted material. It was previously deleted in February due to the stench of OR and POV and the comlete lack of reliable sources. King of the North East 18:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is just for fun I think. Raymond Giggs 14:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a very PoV oriented article Skitzo (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After Happy Ever (Radio Show)

AfDs for this article:

Previously in October 2008. No consensus to delete then and still no evidence of notability. Nothing that established notability and being broadcast on BBC Radio 4 does not provide inherent notability. StarM 03:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I would say "keep", but there's been long enough to flesh it out and make it acceptable. It doesn't look like it's going to improve. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonexistent WP:RS to build an article from. Others of its ilk should be zapped as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suzan DelBene

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as well as general notability criteria. This is a candidate for congress, and has not received significant coverage yet. Firestorm ^Talk 03:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some coverage:

1. MSNBC: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/06/1823619.aspx
2. The Hill: http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/dems-make-3rd-try-against-reichert-2009-03-05.html
3. The Olympian: http://www.theolympian.com/localnewsfeed/story/774313.html

4. Seattle PI: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/401152_reichert24.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.229.168 (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) — 24.19.229.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - it runs like an advert, and I think she probably fails WP:POLITICIAN. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she's a declared candidate for a congressional seat with national press. The article appears straightforward in that it says she's a candidate and that's all. She may fail or not, but that isn't relevant.— 24.19.229.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - It runs like an advert? It's a single line that states a fact. Anyway she's running for a seat in a major district against a major opposing politician Dave Reichert. It will almost certainly be a major fight, with two well bankrolled candidates. Give it some time to flesh out the article, it was only just added. Proxy User (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:POLITICIAN: "Major figures in national or first-level sub-national political races." THF (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not yet the Democratic nominee for the office--as I understand the sources she is someone who is merely considering running. I have for long supported the idea hat the candidates of major parties in a 2 party system like the US for national level offices are notable. But this does not rationally apply before the primary. Announcing that one intends to run for office does not make one a major political figure. Nor do I accept the articles as showing notability according to the GNG: they are primarily about the chances of unseating the incumbent, not about her as a candidate. On the other hand she's apparently a VP at Microsoft--is that distinctive notability? I do not know how many then might have. DGG (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC) ~ ~~[reply]
Keep She seems to be mounting a serious challenge against the incumbent. Coverage is small but seems sufficient. --Sloane (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep If the standard is to be the nominee, we'd never have pages on almost all candidates for office. That's just not right.— 24.19.229.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ^{Struck through because this IP has already !voted above - Firestorm ^Talk 15:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep and tag for expansion as per sneaking up on Notability. More will doubtless follow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shay Carl

This seems like a non-notable Youtuber to me. He is #30 in subscriptions in one particular subcategory, something does not seem particularly notable to me. What do you guys think? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Person is not notable outside Youtube, and not incredibly notable even inside it. Firestorm ^Talk 03:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only self-published sources to back up. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:WEB standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guy has 70,000 youtube subscribers. c'mon. That sounds like 70,000 votes for yes to me. If he goes away like a fad, then delete him later. Jtyoga (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have (or used to have) an entire list of Youtubers filled with people with more than a million hits. If we're going to include people with 70,000 because you believe it's a lot, suddenly 80% of all youtubers would become notable. (WP:BIGNUMBER) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources are reliable and independent and there don't appear to be any others. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He work at radiostation, his friends - YouTube stars (Tay Zonday, etc), he met Judd Apatow one day, etc. I think only because of that, he can have page at wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.210.88 (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Awkward, but there seems to be enough discussion following relisting Fritzpoll (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T. Love

Comment: FYI: Duplicate article was speedy deleted for CSD A7. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - 149.142.220.74 (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - 71.138.125.138 (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Advertisement. Also fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTE. - 68.183.104.7 (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 03:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:MUSIC. Last paragraph, where the subject proclaims to have managed Cut Chemist (among other things) is full of lies. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 06:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per above. (Damn though... I wish those IP votes counted. This is why they should create accounts). Versus22_talk 06:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Versus22, could you please read the background on this article? The IP votes were discounted because they were all sockpuppets of the nominator, who was banned for extensive socking and vote-stacking on AFDs he had started. There is no dispute over this. I don't know why that wasn't noted in the relisting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Is it alright to close? Sorry, I wasn't aware about the sockpuppet situation. Versus22_talk 19:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to T.Love While I hate to see the blocked sockpupeteer get their way, they probably didn't need to bother with the vote stacking on this one. An aspiring artist who never "broke through" and instead had a series of low-level music industry jobs is what I'm seeing here, and I think Doc Strange is right that most of the last section is WP:BALLS. Also a nice troutslap for whoever did the sloppy DRV closing and incomplete relist with no note about the socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that there was another article with a similar name. The Polish band seems to be notable enough and this would make a good redirect as it is a likely search term. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitzi McGilvray

Not notable. Article asserts only a connection with a barely notable group, but this is not enough. Google hits seem to be largely to social networking sites. Thompson Is Right (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also the creator has been blocked indefinitely for "promotion of a company or group". Thompson Is Right (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If TikGames is a "barely notable group", why do they have an article? And if they are not, isn't being one of their VPs notable? Proxy User (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think the Chair Emeritus thing has something to do with that. MuZemike 17:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the existence or nonexistence of another article has no bearing on the this article. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — some mention of her appointment as Chair Emeritus of the IGDA [49]. She is also listed by Edge magazine as the video game industry's top 100 most influential women [50]. She is also briefly mentioned in other major outlets such as CNET [51]. However, I do acknowedge that the sources I mentioned could be more comprehensive as far as coverage is concerned, but I think she establishes at least a bare minimum amount of notability. MuZemike 17:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails inclusion criteria as per WP:NOTE. No reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Feucht

There seems to be nothing notable about this gentleman's life or death. It was sad he died young, at war, and wonderul that his body was found 60+ years later, however there's no evidence that there was anything notable about the recovery of his body. It was briefly in the news when it happened, but there appears to be no long term notability. Fails NOTNEWS and essentially, althoug not technically ONEEVENT since he's passed. StarM 03:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable for how his remains were found and repatriated - almost 60 years after his plane was lost. Proxy User (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment do you have evidence of that notability? It making the news briefly is not notability and I haven't seen anything else. StarM 03:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not especially notable. Not the first person whose remains were found long after he died and certainly not the last. The article doesn't even seem to be particularly sure of his surname. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Source engine mods. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy (video game)

I could not find any reliable secondary sources that can establish notability of this Source engine mod. I have tried searching the major game websites, including searches of "Synergy Source", "Synergy Steam", "Synergy Valve", and "Synergy game" and came up with nothing. MuZemike 02:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 02:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Source engine mods. Fails Verifiability and per nom, lacks Reliable Secondary Sources to write a non-original research / neutral POV article. Note that Moddb is not considered an RS. MLauba (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This source mod is notable as it is distributed through Valve's Steam network. This honor is awarded only to mods that are popular in the gaming community and meet Valve's conditions for inclusion. Spacebar265 (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not use headings in the discussion as it breaks the formatting. Also, Valve's inclusion standards != Wikipedia's inclusion standards; that is, not every Steam game is automatically notable. notability is not inherited. MuZemike 00:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established, the fact it's found on Steam has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Rehevkor ✉ 14:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge - To List of Source engine mods. Doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion as an article, but certainly should be in the list. — neuro^(talk) 16:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication as to why it is important enough to add to the list. Lack of WP:Verifiability. Marasmusine (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as one of the first Source mods to be properly distributed by Steam by Valve Software (an event that does have commentary out there), there should be some mention of this somewhere. The Source mods list would be an apt place. -- Sabre (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Source engine mods.--SkyWalker (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Source engine mods.--Sloane (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of mansions

violates WP:NOT (this is not a place for lists of indiscriminate stuff); also violates WP:OR (original research) Mhking (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my Father's house are many mansions... and the same with Beverly Hills and Palm Beach. This looks like original research using the zillows.com site and saying, "that looks like a mansion". The problem is that if three houses on South Mapleton Drive in Beverly Hills are on the list, other houses ought to be as well, and the list would go on and on. Mandsford (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete it is possible that the web site is in fact a RS for this sort of information. The data is ultimately derived from the tax rolls, which are official primary sources. We cant compile it from there, but if some responsible source does, we can certainly use that source. It is NOT indiscriminate, because there's a size cutoff. If this was done from a sort on their data base, though, I do not think it sufficiently reliable. i tried to do something similar and found a considerable number of obvious errors--maybe the ed. here analyzed it further, but that might indeed be excessive synthesis. But depending on how it was done, it just possibly be a suitable selective list. DGG (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disclosure: I created this article. The list is certainly not indiscriminate, only homes above 20,000 square feet of living space are included as noted in the header of the list. I felt that was a sufficiently high cutoff as to not include too many properties, and so that properties of that size are "notable" for their size alone (as some buildings are notable for their height alone), but perhaps as the list grows the cutoff can be moved higher. I have changed the name to clarify that the list is not indiscriminate. However, the list is not complete, and I have changed the header to reflect this. Given the number of sources required to create a truly complete list, I feel that requiring a complete list sets too high a bar. Sourcing is a work in progress, but the vast majority of the sourcing is to Zillow. I do not see this as a problem, since zillow uses public records (primary sources), but would of course be happy to see more sources. I also hope to create more links to other Wikipedia articles where notable properties that appear on the list are referenced. Individuals are to be linked to their properties only when they are the publicly known addresses of notable individuals.NewtyW (talk), 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep and consider a name change to "Largest homes by square footage"
Delete the idea for a list of large residential structures is nice, but sourced only from zillow, and not even every address sourced? not good. of course, the title of such an article would have to be changed, but im not sure even what you would call it, and if so why such a list would be notable. i can see famous mansions, or homes with record selling prices. it would have to be noted by the author how s/he was thorough in not shorting some regions, etc . i recommend the creator of the page do more work on the subject before creating the article, especially multiple references to houses, and creation of some stubs for some addresses.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is indiscriminate and severely incomplete; I suspect there are more mansions in the U.S. (not to mention the rest of the world). Pastor Theo (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG delete Putting a list of people's addresses up on Wikipedia because of their listing on a quasi-reliable real estate site goes beyond original research, it's asking to get sued. While the notability guidelines don't generally apply to the contents of an article, I think it's important for the houses to be distincive outside of their square-footage alone. We should respect these people's privacy and not report on them until they've been reported on. Themfromspace (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still considering my own comment, but I have to comment on yours. (1) The people listed as the owners are only mentioned for already known residences with an article which are supposedly verifiable and non-private (2) Listing someone's address is not a privacy violation. In the Netherlands we used to have books with zipcodes which did it all the time. No one is going to sue anyone for listing their home address unless it reveals details that aren't public. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a a front/coatrack for zillow.com. Some verifiable data may be salvaged to Mansion. NVO (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivia. Proxy User (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I strongly disagree that this is indiscriminate. We have articles on lists of skyscrapers above a certain height; I don't see how a list of largest single-family residents by square footage is any less notable. I think a list of largest or most notable residences is certainly an article appropriate for Wikipedia to have. Sure, maybe the criterion for conclusion needs to be refined and the list culled a bit. But it's against the spirit of Wikipedia to delete an article that can be improved into a good article, even if it needs a lot of work. Antony-22 (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference with List of tallest buildings in the world is that these are all buildings that have articles themselves. The majority of the ones on this list are not generally known. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could limit the list to residences that are notable enough to have their own articles, or have notable occupants, as one way of refining the inclusion criterion. I'm sure there are enough of these to justify keeping the article. Antony-22 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, Ick, geez. Yea, we should allow articles that have promise to have time for improvement, but this article should be improved in userspace, not in mainspace. It really is a mess of a directory right now. There is little context to the list and houses are just listed by address instead of their names (I am sure if they are the biggest homes by square footage, they have names). In fact, I don't think the addresses are relevant at all to the list, especially if the property has been named. If the house is actually notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then move that info there. Don't make it hard to recreate, but this should be worked on elsewhere for now. SMSpivey (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communitychannel

Delete.Non-notable blog. Grahame (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established, fails WP:WEB. WWGB (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disclosure: I have added significant content to this page. Difficulty in establishing legitimacy due to use of new, more ephemeral media (Youtube) which I recognize is cause for caution. However, since the original delete recommendation, this article has been substantiated with references to several mainstream news media outlets. This page is intentionally not a fan page to Ms. Tran, but is descriptive of the Video Blog communitychannel, its techniques, recurring characters and influence outside the online world. Notability has been established and referenced. Suggestion below that "page exists solely to generate 'viral' notability" is countered by communitychannel's pre-existing viewer size, longevity (2 years), consistent postings and themes and acceptance as legitimate and respectable by mainstream media. ----aaftabj-- (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia. Requested copyright permission for video screen captures from Communitychannel for wikipedia page----aaftabj-- (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poor references/external links by YouTube (which is inappropriate links/spam, according to XLinkBot). Versus22_talk 07:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep ~~no evidence of notability, no reliable sources for claims,~~ sources added demonstrate notability, and no longer written as a fan page/ad. JJL (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see this article from the Sydney Morning Herald, which notifies her popularity in Youtube. Doesn't that make her blog notable? Also, just because I'm an IP user doesn't mean I'm not aware about Wikipedia guidelines. 123.2.177.50 (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -I did a little research on her tonight and found some legitimate articles about her showing that she is a significant YouTuber. Here is a link to a NewTeeVee article on her:[52] She was featured on G4tv as one of the "Women of the Web" on October 24, 2008.[53] She had been featured before but I don't know what date that was. She made an appearance on the September 22, 2008 episode of the show The Hack Half Hour.[54] She was also featured in an article in PC World from October 24, 2007.[55] I think these sources show that she has some significance in the wider world and it is premature to delete her article. Instead, I believe it can be improved. This article has only existed for a couple days so I think it should be given a chance to grow.-Schnurrbart (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: she is currently the most viewed Youtuber in Australia, and has been covered in multiple media reports, as noted above. Radagast3 (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. "Australia's queen of YouTube" according to a top tier australian newspaper pretty much does it for me. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just keep. Whats the harm, zeesh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.145.215 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 124.178.145.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons as above --129.78.64.103 (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable blog. Just another YouTuber. Page exists solely to generate "viral" notability. Several of the “keep”s confirm that. Yes, yes, I know “assume good faith” except to do so in this case would be to ignore the obvious. Proxy User (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough reliable source coverage. Also per: I don't care much about YouTube celebrities, but I know about communitychannel. Most YouTubers are not notable, but she is. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's the 37th most subscribed user on the whole of youtube, and the top subscribed user in Australia, and she's attracted serious coverage in notable publications, which are linked = notable.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the articles tend to focus on Natalie Tran--perhaps a merge/rd to that page (itself currently a rd) would be helpful? JJL (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, she's only really notable for this, but it does seem to be notable, and CommunityChannel is not a single event. Given that the Natalie Tran article doesn't exist, that would be an article move anyway, and we're discussing deletion right now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has no point in an Encyclopedia. It's just a youtube account. Do you honestly think every youtuber should have an article in Wikipedia? Perhaps every human being also? This has no encyclopedic relevance, and constitutes only publicity. Also, I feel if such articles are allowed, Wikipedia looses credibility as every person can feel entitled to create their own page about their blog, web site, youtube channel, etc. This is a prime candidate for deletion. --88.157.120.168 (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject, well sourced article. What else is there to say? Ichormosquito (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move (see my comment below) Delete Non-notable, just another YouTube vlog. Hotcrocodile (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you explain why she is not notable? According to WP:WEB, communitychannel meets the criteria for being notable. She has been the subject of multiple news articles in reputable publications and has been featured in the media. Just look up the references in her article if you don't believe me to see if this is true.-Schnurrbart (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point, her vlog isn't notable, but she is. A couple of the articles about her would, I believe, pass WP:WEB, therefore I would vote Keep but only if the article is renamed Natalie Tran with a redirect from Communitychannel, which (as she's a single person YouTube channel) would then be consistent with other YouTubers on the List of YouTube celebrities. Hotcrocodile (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that is reasonable. Can an article nominated for deletion be renamed before the decision of whether it should be kept or not is made or would we have to wait until after that decision is made to decide whether it should be renamed?-Schnurrbart (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move) I would actually argue that her vlog is what is notable, her fame isn't as natalie tyler tran but as communitychannel, but looking how other vloggers entries are done it's using their names and you're linked from their vlog names. Salle81 (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move) I concur with Salle81. Her Vlog is notable, but keep it consistent with previous Vlog pages.----aaftabj-- (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia as a reputuble encyclopedia should allow information/biographies on important people and should not limit it to what only academics and other published encyclopedias/scholars think is important. After all, Wikipedia has hundreds of pages devoted to starsand other frivolous subjects which may be considered unimportant, that could be considered fan pages. Wikipedia should not deny this page on an up and comming media star. Wikipedia, if it truly is the encyclopedia of the people, would allow information on what the people/users consider important. Anything less goes against its principles of allowing anyone to contribute information and they would be preventing its users from augmenting their knowledge about the world around it. [56] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.35.220 (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move article to her real name. Mahanga^Talk 02:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously the person's who have said delete are simply jealous, I do not believe Wikipedia is loosing any sort of credibility whatsoever because the article Isn't presenting a load of false data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.221.34 (talk • contribs)

Comment At least some of them voted for deletion when the article was in a very preliminary state but a lot of progress has been made on the article since then so I think they would vote otherwise at this point.-Schnurrbart (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia has plenty of character profiles on celebrities, Natalie Tran is an online celebrity. She now has credible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MosaicMoments (talk • contribs)
Keep but rename it Natalie Tran, redirected from communitychannel.Reyesking1 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Reyesking1. While most such YouTube bloggers are not notable, she appears to be so, and meets WP:N and WP:WEB. I would integrate the refs into the text, and move to the person's name. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GibLink

The only reliable source that isn't a press release/self published is in forbes, and the coverage is not significant. Doesn't meet notability or web guidelines Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like spam. Smells like spam. Probably spam. Doesn't help that the article's poor quality either. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable social networking site. Facebook wanna-be. Not yet. Spam. Proxy User (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. Moved to User:Lavendercrayons/Carolyn's Hesburgh Project (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn's Hesburgh Project

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Carolyn's Hesburgh Project

Prodded as apparent schoolwork that creates an alternate version of an existing article, Theodore Hesburgh. Deprodded with the following explanation: In response to the deletion: Yes, this is schoolwork. However, I am comparing the first and second revisions of a report I wrote for school. I did not copy the article on Theodore Hesburgh; I wrote about him. Please wait until Monday before deleting it. I think the author misunderstood the nature and purpose of Wikipedia. Delete or userfy. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy userfy. This is a simple misunderstanding -- let's not scare Carolyn away by deleting her school project. Pburka (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Before making this nomination, I gave the author some directives on how to deal with schoolwork. I trust that she saved it somewhere on her hard drive. In any case, she only wishes to have this article kept until Monday, and this AfD normally closes on Wednesday. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userify - Per Carolyn. I'd lean towards straight speedy deletion, since Wikipedia is not the place to publish one's essays (one way or another we're now needlessly wasting some of our time on this), but OK, in the hope that we don't scare a potentially good contributor. §FreeRangeFrog 02:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or userify). Clearly should have been a speedy delete candidate. tedder (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Your Choice Records. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Your Choice Records bands

Contested prod. List of bands that signed with Your Choice Records, a minor German label. Any relevant information should be merged to the main article. We do not need a separate article. Also, a {{COI}} tag was removed at the same time as the prod. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge with main article. Proxy User (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Choice Records is an independent record label that has managed to create a fairly astonishing catalog of live European and American punk bands in an important period of time. It is very notable as it has documented and released moments of musical history that, even if it happened all independent and without major promotion and big money involved, had a huge impact to the development on music itself. I don´t think we need to argue about "punk" and question it´s existence here. But the musicians mentioned on the "List of Your Choice Records bands" really had strong believe in what they did and they made great changes possible, made people think and react. I think all this is very notable and NOT MINOR.

This extra page seems reasonable to feature the artists by their names. It is relevant information and Wikipedia, it is a nice overview and it is the right place to provide this information, so please help out to SAVE the info, not to delete! Thank you!

Some more, regarding the list of bands: Germany already agreed with the German version of the extra site. See: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_Choice_Records_-_Diskografie and I really don´t understand the consideration for deletion. It feels so degrading...

Internal links to the pages of the various bands should fix the problem with the MISSING SOURCES, besides, there is a possibility to check the official site of the label and various sites about releases of the Your Choice Label on Wikipedia, done by various people...

To MERGE all of this to the main article seems to be a bit to much for that main site. What´s the problem with leaving it like it is? Do we have a problem with adding an extra site to Wikipedia for some reason?

Anyways please do what you have to do. It was a lot of work to prepare the info and site. If you need to delete for reasons I can not understand, well then go for it and delete. Party diktator (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fundamental question is whether this information belongs in Wikipedia. The list seems to be of reasonable length; it's not the can of worms that, say, List of artists on Capital Records would be. Is the list directly verifiable? No: There is no source that references each of the artists recording on Your Choice. Is it indirectly verifiable? Yes: The notable bands mentioned in the list have albums on Your Choice listed in their respective (discography) articles. (Comment on what Party diktator said: internal links do not remedy the missing sources issue, though reliable sources cited on the linked pages can carry over.)

The secondary question is whether to merge this content with the Your Choice Records article. However, merger is a subset of keep. I think the best thing to do at this time is to work on sourcing the list and refine the format of the list. Then we can decide whether it should stand alone or be placed into the main article, but in either case, it would be kept. —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vodkapundit

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:A7 ; no source for "Green’s blog is one of the more widely-read political journals on the Internet, receiving thousands of visits daily from readers around the world", and the page has not been updated in some time. Ks64q2 (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be enough Google News and Google News archives mentions to warrant retention. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should circular references from Google vis a vis Digg and StumbledUpon really count for a keep, though? 71.63.26.57 (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It took me all of thirty seconds to find mentions in the Washington Post and Salon.com that support any assertion of notability. Here's the BBC and the Philly Inquirer, for good measure. This nomination seems a little pointy, to me. one brave monkey 09:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A one-line mention in a print-article is enough to meet the notability guidelines? I don't think so. Topics are usually considered appropriate for an article if they have been written about in a non-trivial manner by multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. This article fails the notability guidelines because, while information can be found on the subject's existence in the aforementioned articles, the subject's notability hasn't been proven. Not every blog can be written about on Wikipedia. The sources have to be about the blog itself, they can't merely mention it or refer to it. There has to be in-depth discussion of the blog, which does not occur in any of the aforementioned articles. Hats off to Themfromspace (talk) for pointing this out to me. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources (again, found in a very quick Google News search) are major news organisations quoting the blog as a source. The quotes are not single-line and refer to the blog as a major opinion source itself, thus asserting its notability. Have you searched for similar sources, before nominating this for deletion? one brave monkey 06:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mayalld (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I never got a response to my question above so I've JFDI and added a few sources and reworded things. I'm currently having difficulty accessing the site in question (which is limiting my efforts), but this article really only needs someone to spend some time cleaning it up, rather than deletion. one brave monkey 14:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being quoted is NOT "non-trivial coverage in reliable sources". That would consist of newspapers actually publishing facts about Vodkapundit, not just some lines quoted from it. A major point of the notability guidelines is to ensure that an article about X can actually be written based on third-party sources (not based on what X says about himself on his own website with a side mention that "The Big City Times says X is important"). If a mention of X in a third-party source does not enable you to do this, then it doesn't contribute to meeting WP:N. cab (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think Ks64q2 makes an excellent point. There might be a case for a WP article about the blogger(s) themselves (Will Collier was directly quoted no less than 4 times in that BBC article and managed to score the photo quote box over other much more mainstream figures), but the blog itself doesn't seem to meet WP:N. Why not start again there? Half the current article is about Green's personal health anyway and there's already a redirect in place for Stephen Green (blogger). Also found this reference to Green appearing in a radio show which might help establish notability under WP:BIO. chuuumus (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per onebravemonkey. This is a well-known blog, notability is not an issue here. Much as I dislike these types of well-known blogs. §FreeRangeFrog 01:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Stephen Green (blogger). I reiterate my point above. In its current form this article really isn't about Vodkapundit the blog at all -- it's about Stephen Green. Per the article, the following is about Vodkapundit as a blog:

Vodkapundit and the Weblog of Tomorrow, is a weblog created by Stephen Green and written by Green and Will Collier. ... Vodkapundit has become one of the more widely-read political journals on the Internet

And the following is about Green himself:

Green, self described as a "gourmand, sybarite, and raconteur," operates a blog focuses on issues of politics, food, adult beverages, Green's own hobbies and personal pursuits, and general culture. Green, a libertarian, credits Ayn Rand as one of his inspirations. Green and Vodkapundit are part of Pajamas Media. Green lives in Colorado Springs with his wife, Melissa, and their son. On December 16, 2006 Mr. Green reported that he had been diagnosed with hyperthyroid condition that caused him to severely lose weight and to suspend the frequency of his blogging. That condition is being treated. One of Green's signature blogging styles is to live blog a political event while consuming a large number of vodka martinis. ...Green has been described by James Lileks as having "mordant wit and stylish cynicism."

There's simply not enough about the blog itself to meet WP:N, but I think there's a case to be made for WP:BIO if moved and reorganized. chuuumus (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Besides circular Google references and one or two very minor quotes, it is a forgettable blog by a barely notable author. Proxy User (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't adequately prove notability.--Sloane (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources actually discussing the website on hand instead of namedropping it. This doesn't meet our notability criteria. Themfromspace (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of sources indicates lack of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fluxx. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fluxx goals

AfDs for this article:

Previously nominated for deletion, resulted in merge. That was over a month ago, no merge done, so renominating for deletion. Oscarthecat (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you can just redirect it to the merge target and any editor who cares can go in the history to get text to complete the merge. 24.211.34.78 (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I tend to agree with the anon. I don't see why we should delete material when it isn't merged soon enough. According to the deletion policy, deletion is for harmful material or material that cannot be saved. Since this can be merged, that is not an issue. There is also no deadline. (Incidentally, I still haven't discovered how the claim that something has to be merged promptly became part of the merge template to begin with.) Redirecting would still allow someone to merge at a later date without leaving the page lying around in the mean time. Use NOINDEX if there are concerns about its appearance on Google. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There's no time limit for merges, so no reason to delete. Edward321 (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content doesn't seem salvageable.--Sloane (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep We already have a result as the nomination says - we shouldn't need more discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as no valid reason has been given for deletion. There is no policy or guideline that says that the failure by "someone" to perform a merge is a reason for deletion. No editor has any more or less ability or responsibilty to perform the merge than any other, so if an editor is concerned that a merge hasn't happened then the solution is simply to do it, not to renominate the article for deletion. I am concerned that the Template:Afd-mergeto appears to encourage editors to renominate in this way. If anyone else has any opinion about the wording (either for or against) then I would encourage them to join the discussion at Template talk:Afd-mergeto. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple blank and redirect - What is there to merge? The article for AfD is a how-to essay at best, which if brought to standards would be reduced to the blurb already present on the "Rules and Gameplay" section of the game article. I don't understand what would be merged here. If the article is notable enough to have its own article, that's fine. But a detailed manual on how to play one of its variants is a bit too much. §FreeRangeFrog 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna biennale

Non-notable art exhibit, fails WP:V. References are either trivial mentions or not reliable sources. Ghits. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one's tough. It seems to be a young event, in that the organizers and artists are young. The ghits are spotty and I'm wondering if this is because of two things: first, there may only be German-language coverage at the moment; and second, there appears to be some false hits through the confusion with the Venice Biennale. There was a ghit for Louise Bourgeois representing the US in the Vienna Biennale in the Village Voice. This would be significant both in coverage and due to Bourgeois' status. However, the article states that she represented the US in 1993, so I'm guessing that's a typo. I'll do some more searching. They are reaching for an international presence, so the coverage may be there. But I'm holding off on my !vote for now. freshacconci talktalk 15:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you may have something there. Looks like we've got 5 more days now. If you come up with anything further I'd be willing to withdraw this nom. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per Freshacconci. However, the article needs major cleanup. Versus22_talk 07:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm finding Google hits for "Vienna Biennale" and "Wiener Biennale" that apparently refer to one or more earlier series of exhibitions with this name—quite a few mention dates in the 1980s, for example, and some refer to the '30s and '40s. (And "Wiener Biennale" is not likely to be a typo in a German publication.) Just a warning that some search results may not refer to the subject of this article. Deor (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Vienna Biennale" is often used by mistake when people mean Venice Biennale established in 1895. Ty 16:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that in references like this (scroll down to "1979") it seems highly unlikely that Wien is being confused with Venedig. Deor (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've cleaned up the article and added some refs. It has recognition from the office of the Chancellary of Austria. Ty 16:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new version by Ty - Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new edits. This is now sourced and shows notability. freshacconci talktalk 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Defense Review

Doesn't appear to meet requirements of WP:WEB; specifically, I can't find any reliable, third party references about this site. It's contributors are notable, and WDR's articles get reprinted, but there is no independent coverage. Recommend Delete, though I will withdraw if someone else has better luck finding sources. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 15:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google seems to indicate that this is a highly quoted resource in the defense community, regardless of the notability of the owners. §FreeRangeFrog 00:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's not a "highly quoted resource in the defense community", it's a fringy website that shows up on a number of non-notable blogs and websites. Besides, being widely quoted is one of the criteria at WP:WEB - we're looking for independent coverage, of which there seems to be none. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 12:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider IDC Herzliya/ICT or any organization that counts Uriel Reichman or Shabtai Shavit as directors to be "fringe". J. Peter Pham is also notable enough to give defense-related testimony before Congress. YMMV of course :) §FreeRangeFrog 17:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems to be non-notable, at least outside of a very specific niche. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable publication, quoted in other notable publications. Being a "niche" publication is not grounds for deletion, nor is being about fighting wars - as objectionable as that is. Publication has significant contributors (some well known names in the field of war mongering thought), and is notable as a forum for the notable people who write for it (seriously). Calling the publications / web sites that it is mentioned in "fringe" is POV and weaselly. Besides, something with a font that tiny has to have gravitas. The article does need work, and if it is kept, I'll spend some time on it. I'd personally like to see all those guys crawl back under their rocks, but none the less... Proxy User (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best Of UWF

Non-notable, no sources. If you look at the (freebie hosting) website listed on the article, it's just a bunch of kids playing at wrestling. They removed the speedy I placed, so I've put it at AFD. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 09:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "release" appears to have comprised the people on the disc going round someone's house to watch it, think that says it all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ChrisTheDude.
Delete - as quickly as possible really. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred James

Delete. This is not a given name - Alfred is the given name, James is one of the middle names. On WP, we do not keep pages to list everyone with a certain combination of given name and middle name. Please see Frank William's AfD. Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Del. There are pairs of names like "John Mark" (the name of the reputed author of the Gospel of Mark), that seem to occur together far more than statstics of the individual names would predict. But apparently random pairs of just of the most popular American male names (which cover 90% of that population) would run over a million articles, and the corresponding ones for American females over 4 million. By the end of WP's 16th year, that may be no big deal, but for now it would be a major change in the nature of the 'pedia's infrastructure, to little effect.
--Jerzy•t 07:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would sound like a rationale for deleting John Smith. A statistical argument is a misleading one here, and it would also be as incorrect a reason for deleting as crystal balling would be a reason for keeping (and neither of the above posters can legitimately claim WP:CBALL here). The key question is whether or not these people were commonly called "Alfred James" as opposed to only "Alfred" or "Al," and this question has yet to be addressed in this discussion. ~~For the time being, I am neutral as I can see both valid sides of this "argument."~~ B.Wind (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Struck last line - see below. B.Wind (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mayalld (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a given name page would be giving information about a given name and a list of some notables with this given name. 'Alfred James' is not a given name, whereas 'Sarah-Louise' is. It is irrelevant whether any of these were known as 'Alfred-James', and none of the articles indicate that they were anyway. Boleyn (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Being that I do not yet see a reason for deletion under WP:DELETE, I default toward keeping. I am not opposed to revisiting this issue in, say, six months, if there is nothing indicating a solution to the "key question" that I posed earlier. Unfortunately, MOS:DAB precludes citation on a dab page, but there is nothing precluding the continuation of this discussion on the dab page's talk page. B.Wind (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital amnesia

Non notable neologism. Only possible notable claim reference is in Microsoft marketing materials. Not enough on its own for notability. Must have more references appear or else it's non-notable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added to content and included several more references citing several additional, reputable sources. I'll continue to build references and clean the definition. Microsoft reference came as as surprise to me as I was researching the term. I felt it necessary to include it with the definition. --Peyronnin (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curious... there is Software rot, Link rot, a more sophisticated case of Data migration ... and then the mother of all, Obsolescence. Shouldn't there be a special case of obsolescence that covers all computer-related "amnesia"? NVO (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolescence has a very generic feel. Digital Amnesia seems to really capture the transient state of our digital knowledge and its dependency on systems that are updated without regard to what is being lost. Obsolescence pertains to the equipment, the software and the technicians who operate on both. Digital amnesia pertains to the knowledge that is lost due to the rapid pace of change. Additionally, digital covers all hardware/software, not exclusively computers, in this crazy converged digital world. --Peyronnin (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technology knowledge is lost just as well, although not as publicly as "hey, where's that three inch slot"... trust me, I work with vacuum tubes and this technology is gone. Shouldn't it be called Analogue amnesia? NVO (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I love vacuum tubes! I have them in my guitar amp - nice warm sound. Of course, I old enough to remember tube testers at the hardware store when I was young.

There is some history to the "digital amnesia" concept. I used it when I taught Freshman level technology courses at my college. Perhaps think of it as the catalyst that has created the problem as well as the victim. It seems that the further we progress in developing stores of knowledge to be accessible from anywhere by anyone, the more tranisient and vulnerable it becomes. This is only possible by turning them into bits, eight per byte (do you remember EBCDIC?) It seems there should be an industry based on converting data from one format to another. There might be a long tail to support a nice business model. --Peyronnin (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added above. Was WP:BEFORE followed in this nomination? – 74 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting article with good sources. I can't see any reasons to delete it. Laurent (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ashley (singer). Mgm|^(talk) 13:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abrazame

Fails wp:music Oo7565 (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NALBUMS. Traditionally, if the artist is notable to begin with (charting or whatever) then there seems to be no particular prejudice against documenting their discography. At the risk of getting into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there must be thousands of individual EP/LP articles for releases that never even charted, yet they are accepted because they are part of a notable artist's history. §FreeRangeFrog 18:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read on. "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article" from WP:NALBUMS --neon white talk 02:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist article. This probably isnt going to get beyond a stub. The article provides nothing other than basic info. Wikipedia is not a record directory. --neon white talk 02:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ashley (singer). Fails stand alone notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Same goes for pretty much everything else in her back catalogue too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concert Guy

Music promotion company with no evidence of notability as defined in WP criteria (WP:N]). Article cites no references. The only online information I can find about this organization is its own myspace webpage and related pages on similar websites. (Maybe this music promoter will be notable some day, but it's not there yet.) An earlier version of the article (different title) was speedied. This one was prodded; the creator removed the prod template but did not address the notability issue, so here we are at AfD. Orlady (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notable at the local level, if at all. §FreeRangeFrog 00:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mortdale Southside Warriors

Could be a hoax, certainly unsourced and does not seem notable. Grahame (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, not notable, fails WP:GROUP. WWGB (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and no non wikipedia related google hits. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smacks of someone just making it all up - as above, no relevant GHits (as in, 0), no sources listed, no wikilinks, no notability, nothing... - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Realism

This has been tagged for a few days now, and it still has no sources, and no real apparent notability. Right now it looks like OR with red links on wikipedia. I may be wrong, and I welcome that if the sources exist, but this should be on AFD for that reason.

There may, in some book, be a real concept of "abstract realism." Whatever that concept is, it needs to have sources here. If there is an abstract realism but it's not the same as what's being referred to here, that is not a reason to keep this topic (unless someone does the work to reform it completely). Shadowjams (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an OR essay. If the concept is notable it can be created again, but it would need a fundamental rewrite if kept. Deleting the page can't hurt since when somebody wants to come along and write about abstract realism in an encyclopedic style using sources, there will be nothing to stop them. Themfromspace (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom. It's a bit of OR followed by a bunch of redlinks. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I didn't find two books that used this term to refer to the same thing. Typically they're using the term to refer to a particular person's ideas. WillOakland (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Well sourced topic it seems [57] (book with section on topic), [58] (another book), [59] defines the term and [60] references a paper solely on this topic. It may well be that some of these are different definitions (too far from my field to tell) but they look pretty similar to me. Article sucks however. Hobit (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a Google search suggests that the term is in use, but not in such a definite or coherent way as to make an article possible at present. As a neologism, it doesn't pass WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. See, for instance, this fairly general piece of art-speak, including:

"...many artist are now working in what is a mixture of the two, what I and others have come to call abstract realism. This abstract realism is a form of art that sits between realistic depiction of the world and a non representational abstraction. No longer are the two separate and opposed, but come together to strengthen each other and form an alloy. The artist who can make realistic images, but takes that skill and creates a more abstract painting that is greater than sum of them both."

Amazon Beard

Was prodded as having no reliable sources, no notability asserted. Prod was endorsed. An editor with a long history of removing prods with no reason per Wikipedia standards removed the prod notices and the notability tags. His only source added to the article was an IMDB page making an unreliable claim about the person's age. Only has extreme bit parts, notability clearly failed. DreamGuy (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bit parts in bit movies. Fails WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog 17:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant parts to establish notability as a performer. Jvr725 (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few minor roles only, doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uros Derota

non notable individual, not referenced, does not assert notability, no reliable sources, promotional Troyster87 (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional resume of a nonnotable person. Themfromspace (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, no references or links at all. Versus22_talk 07:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patterson Lundquist

non notable unreferenced RS free promotional article for bit actor Troyster87 (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable bit actor fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Not finding any reliable source coverage to justify an article. Note that the page creator appears to have a conflict of interest. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TangibleDreams (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)*All details listed are verified through the Internet Movie Database. Also entertainer is included/referenced in another wiki-article/page for "The Search for the Next Elvira" as a key player/role. Would the page for Elvira/Cassandra Peterson, altered by her management and updated by her agent be considered 'conflict of interest' as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TangibleDreams (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TangibleDreams (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC) *Entertainer is also listed on wikiarticle for Elvira/Cassandra Peterson which makes two separate article refrences.[reply]

TangibleDreams (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Source coverage available at: Cassandra Peterson see 'impersonators' The Search for the Next Elvira appeared in every episode and served as make-up artist for the finalists. Far more than a bit part.[reply]

- There are thousands of people listed on the internet movie database, that does not mean they are notable for wikipedia entries. The IMDb is just a good source for verifying filmographies. Furthermore being listed on a wikipedia article does not show any notability nor is it a reference, sure by the dictionary definition he is "referenced" however when editing wikipedia you must have a reference is a realible source, such as newspaper, book, encyclopedia, or magazine, or reputable website such as Weather.com or the CIA world factbook or CBS.com. He must not just be mentioned such as in credits but be the main subject of multiple non-trivial coverage. Also I could add him to a thousand wikipedia articles as can anyone that still makes for 1000 unusable "references"Troyster87 (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Exceptionally non-notable actor, article author is subject (Google +TangibleDreams +"Patterson Lundquist"). Proxy User (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-promotion. Robsavoie (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- valid entry with relevance to Cassandra Peterson.TangibleDreams (TangibleDreams) 20:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- while bordering on self-promotion, relevance is found in relation to a well received reality show. If article were to list references for a few points I see no reason to delete. ModestMouse69 (ModestMouse69) 12:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- As long as wikipedia has needless articles for adult film/pornography stars with pointless, unreferenced, self-promoting material geared towards an adult audience on an all ages site like Wikipedia, there's absolutely no reason this article should be removed. There is a nice amount of verified references and the subject matter (while off-beat) is interesting. While self-promotion is arguable, too many other articles here could be regarded as self promotion as well. COI doesn't completely apply in this case as all information in this article directly reflects subjects actual accomplishments. COI would only come into play if article was written in a competitive style to make article subject appear 'better' than another individual of similar standing. NPOV is a bit blurry in some areas, however the majority of the article presents it's self neutrally in regards to article timeline and accomplishments. NPOV becomes blurry in areas where research falls short. Personal data like birth date and childhood information. Author of article should identify themselves and attempt to clarify the origin of information for various article subjects. Even with these points in mind I still see reason to retain the article. NickVincent75 (NickVincent75) 13:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to me to be presented fairly and to establish a certain notability. I had no idea who Elvira was before I found this (I'm not in the USA and don't watch television anyway), but there seems to be a notability factor present. Another valid claim is the Jeannie website (I had heard of Jeannie). As to the above comment about porn 'stars', Wikipedia is not censored. I do agree that the notability of some of them seems dubious, but 'this can because that does' is not a Wikipedia policy. I feel this article fulfils the relevant requirements anyway. Peridon (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural keep - nominator is sockpuppet banned for bad faith AfD nominations

Dj Patrick

non notable musician, not referenced, no reliable sources Troyster87 (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you try to dig up reliable sources? =- Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I did google news, google, and gogle scholar searches that only resulted in anecdotal unrealiable sources and myspace links.Troyster87 (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Council for Technology in Education

No notability for this organization mentioned, just brief explanation of. Seeing limited references in Google generally, over 4 years of existence, little improvement. Lucas20 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could use some work and sourcing, but a Google search does return a few sources. -down load | sign! 19:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I see 5 hits (all time) from regional news sources, and a mere 417 from Google Search itself. Most with non-notable substance. Clarify 'some work' ? -- Lucas20 (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This is the sort of body that usually does not leave much in the way of a public record in secondary sources, and it is therefore hard to judge the importance, unless they do something pioneering that is actually notable. I think the likelihood is low, but if something actually significant is found, I'll change my !vote. DGG (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while Google News only finds five stories, the main Google search turns up dozens more, some covering the organization and many more covering the science fairs and other science competitions they cover. At least one of the sources is published in the UK so "regional" coverage (always a suspect criteria) is not a concern here. Could the article be improved? Probably, but that's a matter for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dravecky. Spinach Monster (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Dravecky. Is Google News now the arbitror of Wiki acceptability? Good grief! God help us if someone adds an article about something unique and interesting but obscure (and thus with not much in Google). I'm serious, folks, this is an actual longstanding relevant NGO in Alabama educational circles. When did Wikipedia become so Patrician? Proxy User (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AVADirect

Spammy article about non-notable custom computer system builders; long history of seeming COI edits Orange Mike | Talk 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a lot of work to remove POV pushing, IMHO needs to be be semi-protected.Troyster87 (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How is it non-notable? Is it because there are no sources, no coverage, or the long-history of COI issues? Rilak (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The ground for deletion is non-notability: i.e., no sources, no coverage. COI, as User:DGG and other fine editors will remind you, is not in and of itself grounds for deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - But there are sources, such as this one here and here. AVADirect appears to be notable. There products are reviewed in the relevant publications (boutique, consumer and enthusiast). I am not seeing the problem here. Rilak (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very much a notable company. It's one of six existing small computer manufacturing companies in America, it's shown up in every major computer magazine...how is it not notable? And as for COI edits...I work for a competitor and I am actually trying to keep this article up because our industry is so niche and is an endangered species, so to speak. We all stick together. Just because you're not familiar with this industry doesn't mean it's "not notable". --HeatherMTaylor (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC) — HeatherMTaylor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Here is a complete list of all 3rd party reviews done on the company. It's sourced off of AVAdirect's website, but all the links are to independent reviewing sources. That should be proof of notability. http://www.avadirect.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=40 --HeatherMTaylor (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? Those are links to reviews on some sort of bulletin board maintained by AVA; if these are legit reviews, we need solid links to the third-party sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having looked at some of them, they do link to sites such as CNET (check for a link to the original source within the forum postings). However some of them are not reviews, but rather product information pages maintained by a third party, which serve no purpose. Rilak (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With OrangeMike's help, the listing should be more in line with Wiki standards. Here are some links to prove notability:
http://reviews.cnet.com/1770-5_7-0.html?query=avadirect&tag=srch
http://reviews.digitaltrends.com/review/5568/ava-direct-gaming-pc-workstation-review
http://g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/gadgetpr0n/66120/AVADirect-Gaming-PC-Review.html
http://computers.toptenreviews.com/gaming-laptops/avadirect-inc/avadirect-inc-avadirect-d901c-reviews-24154.htm
http://overclockershq.com/hardware-reviews/ava-direct-custom-gaming-pc-video-review.html
http://www.crn.com/white-box/199904838

Let me know if you need more information...or different information.--HeatherMTaylor (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not see any compelling reason to delete. There are sources about AVADirect and plenty of reviews for their products which mention how notable AVADirect is, although in passing. I think they are sufficient to show that AVADirect is a notable boutique vendor. Rilak (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. and look to cleaning up. As geekly technical this area is, it didn't take long to find a review and more. To those who may be looking to build the article ... it would be nice to include industry or even local media that talk about the company itself. -- Banjeboi 18:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Company's products have received some serious reviews and we have other articles on computer manufacturers. --Sloane (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable company per later sources supplied by HeatherMTaylor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was that there is a clear consensus to delete because the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imbalzano

Author made a page about himself Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero notability, nor any assertion thereof J L G 4 1 0 4 01:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To avoid "conflict of interest" I have deleted all links! But this avoid also the completeness of INFORMATION! SEE: "OMISSIS to avoid 'conflict of interest' but you see also all external links in WIKIPEDIA!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imbalzanog (talk • contribs) 12:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a mess and there's nothing establishing notability. Adam Zel (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the biography is complex, but it reflect an entire life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imbalzanog (talk • contribs) 15:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also EXTERNAL LINKS, that you admitted in other part of Wikipedia! Imbalzanog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article, and NOTABLE point are 1) the ANECDOTE 2) RICH productivity 3) remarkable COINCIDENCE of scientific discovery on FERMAT (Wiles/Imbalzano) 4) eccentricity..? Imbalzanog (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm too stupid to be able to find even a small clue as to what the article is about. But its author is its subject, and that's a no-no, yes? Proxy User (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOT DELETE! Not at all! Documented exceptions exist: see Entire rules, please! William B. (ITALY)
Delete - even if the subject were not the author, the subject is non-notable, writings are self-published or conference papers. The almost unreadable translation doesn't help. Robsavoie (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attention, in the interest of all the users. 1) I stayed contacted from a certain < anime_addict_aa@yahoo.com>: he has recopied the page ""http:// en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Imbalzano" on "http]:// www.wikinfo.org/ index.php/ Imbalzano"; he believe to do me a favor, without any request from me. 2) Applications from isolated users exist for cancellation of the page on "wikipedia" in base to the conceitedness of a personal interest, to which I have already answered, without strong objections from administrative part. 3) I remember: other interventions (past and future) they have made said page of the all neutral! 4) Now, finished the 5 days of discussion, I would ask kindly, also in the interest of the democracy on Wikipedia, to conclude with the acceptance of the page "Imbalzano." 5) Certainly, the ownership of English language will be bettered. User and member: "imbalzanog" (= Imbalzano "Garant"), for don't confuse this with "Giovanni" Imbalzano. Imbalzanog (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC) For ROBsavoie. Please read, and with much attention: see you the ISSN and ISBN?! NOT DELETE Imbalzanog (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost totally incomprehensible, but from what sense I can glean from it this does not seem to be a notable person. No equivalent article on it.WP, which is not a good sign..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP? Article is not political and not is commercial! Ah, ChrisTheDude is a scientist..? Imbalzanog (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP stands for Wikipedia... Oli ^OR Pyfan! 00:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've tried the NOTABLE (sic) references. I can't say I agree with that definition. I'm not prepared to search through five or more sets of stuff on one of them, and couldn't find the subject's surname in another before it crashed Firefox. (Up to that point it consisted of a list of university people one or two of whom might have been notable. I didn't check them.) One that did mention the subject was from 1999 and appeared to be in connection with something for translating into Italian either used by or endorsed by the subject. I hope it's better than whatever was used here. On web search, I did find rather a lot of lulu.com. This is a self-publishing web-based outfit, which is fine if you are producing something of local interest and limited market. Being published this way indicates a lack of notability in the sense used at Wikipedia. On this search, I didn't find much (if anything at all) that I'd really consider reliable third party indicators of notability. Sorry. Peridon (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude was saying there is no article on this subject on the Italian language Wikipedia, and that this indicates non-notability as far as the Italian speaking Wikipedia community is concerned. It could be that one has not been posted yet - if so, why not? It could be that one has been deleted. A quick index check there indicates it hasn't been posted there. Peridon (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If he isn't sufficiently notable for the Italian WP, I don't see that he's sufficiently notable here. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ChrisTheDude and Dori. Oli ^OR Pyfan! 23:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geshe Jinpa Sonam

I do not feel the subject of this article passes WP:BIO; I've looked for references and have come up empty-handed for anything that passes WP:RS 13² 21:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish the reason that subject meets inclusion criteria. The references provided do not show life achievements that warrant an encyclopedia entry. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Lawrence

non notable COI unreferenced autobiography on an unaccomplished individual Troyster87 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep some evidence of notability for this individual; minor awards, minor book and film, probably all adds up to a WP entry. JJL (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a Keep, pending additional verification. It needs independent sources to verify all those claims. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks notable to me. Plenty of links at the bottom of the article to sources that document the stuff described above; would have been nice if they were linked with footnotes, but that's not an absolute requirement. JulesH (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To sumarize the above "keeps": Looks notable. But it's not. The guy directed a few television commercials and has a rack of non-notable industry awards, none of which are notable industry awards, but rather "this year, it's you turn" awards. Many of the links are to one-liners in industry "magazines" listings. I'm sure he's a talented guy, but notablility has not been established. Proxy User (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Microscopically weak keep. There is some evidence of notability but the article has COI issues and needs cleanup and inline citations. The creator's username User:Caravan Pictures is a company name. I'm currently discussing a name change. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Some notability, imo just enough §hawn poo 03:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Central Villa District

promo, non notanle, unreferenced, doesn't even have the chinese name included Troyster87 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junk, look at its website, nothing there. Jtyoga (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notability, no references, almost written like an advert. §hawn poo 03:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 13:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mizu WebPhone

Blatant advertising. User is creating multiple pages for his organization with similar content (for promotional purpose) and little notability. Other similar pages are Mizuphone and Mizu Softswitch Calltech (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: Original Speedy Delete denied - admin thought it better to use Afd to allow others to view pages first. Comments located here on my Talk Page Calltech (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor VOIP client with no showing of minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. There is no assertion of notability in Mizu WebPhone and no references from which notability can be inferred. Google shows lots of download sites but I am not seeing RS coverage. Mizuphone is not much better. Its 5 references are the product's manual and 4 "reviews", which are not RS reviews, just the product descriptions on various download sites. Its Google results are the same. No RS. It also lacks a clear assertion of notability. Add in the blatant COI and it stands no chance. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both, as corporate advert of a non-notable commercial product. §FreeRangeFrog 01:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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