Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 22

< 21 September	23 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Mehta

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability as defined at WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. Editor's assertion of subject's notability is based on a single article rather than a body of work. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 23:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not nearly notable at this point--the academic notability is not enough--2 published papers ( one in Amer J Cardiology & one ion J Nutrition) are not nearly enough. The human interest involved from his youth is not significant notability DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it is unusual for a person to have had a paper published in a medical journal at age 14, he did so with the assistance of his father, cardiologist Jawahar Mehta. While WP:BLP1E is an essay rather than a policy, and the essay is generally misused in attempts to delete articles about very well-known people, I think it's relevant here. Mandsford (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of sufficient notability, Twri (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'm not sure that 17 Google scholar hits is enough to pass WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. Zero Google news hits. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not only does the user fail WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR, WP:BLP1E is also a concern. Only the journal article is anywhere near notable, and it isn't important enough to justify an article for him. Ironholds (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable for his published paper. Law_{type! snype?} 06:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not nearly notable enough. The infobox makes that particularly obvious - Alison ^❤ 05:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Heart Feelings

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film. Contested PROD. Does not appear to have been distributed on any scale, or screened at any notable film festivals, or won any awards. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - according to the article this is to be released in May 2010. The production of it does not appear to be notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It may be that the film is notable, but its notability is not established by what's currently in the article. To whoever has created the article, please don't be discouraged from recreating it once the movie gains a distribution or some press coverage. See WP:SCRABBLE. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete without prejudice. 2010? Search shows this film is already screening at 2009 festivals [1][2], and has received the Natonal Screen Institute Drama Prize. Currently there is not much more available, but it is reasonable to expect more will follow and then it would be proper to welcome this one back. Userfy in the meanwhile. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perseo Miranda

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician; neither evidence nor assertion of notability that meets WP:MUSIC. Orange Mike | Talk 23:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with the 2 album articles from this artist. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--the poor guy, he is very non-notable. I'd buy one of his albums but I can guess what they sound like. In the interest of full disclosure: I've blatantly canvassed a metal-fan with a plea for help, but I doubt User:Blackmetalbaz can save this one. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 17:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google News threw up several Italian news items, e.g. [3], [4], [5]. Google News generally draws from reliable sources, so he may be notable.--Michig (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From the looks a google translation the first 2 [6][7] appear to be the same text. The 3rd [8] looks like an interview. According to the first two articles, Light and darkness sold 6,000 copies and Evolution of the spirit sold 8,000. This information does not add much to the notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can save it. Google News threw up several Italian news items. On his page [9] there are many notable music articles from webzines and magazines, so he may be notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.56.59.209 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 23 September 2009— 82.56.59.209 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
can save [10] here is a video on a notable italian tv and several news from google or other search engine. Not really famous but notable— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.181.216 (talk • contribs) 24 September 2009 16:05 (UTC)— 151.48.181.216 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

notable [11] from this link if you search Perseo Miranda from youtube there are a lot of notable videoclips and videos from many television channels featuring Perseo Miranda— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.224.17.3 (talk • contribs) 26 September 2009 07:42 (UTC){{subst:spa|

notable [12] on this link there are many information about Miranda. I think you can save his page— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.105.167.73 (talk • contribs) 26 September 2009 08:19 (UTC)— 82.105.167.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
notable [13] [14] [15] here are some articles about Perseo Miranda from some important italian music webzines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.228.6.129 (talk • contribs) 26 September 2009 12:44 (UTC)— 95.228.6.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Anybody noticing a certain pattern in the above five comments? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how the above comments' links can claim notability. A Youtube channel can be set up by anyone, and the italian "webzines" cannot seem to prove their notability themselves. Delete the albums with him. talking birds 00:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Towers Sunrise

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the picture has been confirmed to be real, there is nothing to say it is notable. I have looked for reliable sources to establish notability. The original author confirms that they have not found any reliable sources that discuss the picture either. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find this "notable", that being a fishy term, but i'll stay Neutral on this one. I'd like to see if Wikipedia as a whole finds it notable, has heard of it, etc. Saberwolf116 (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not noteworthy, the whole article revolves around the Snopes entry which is hardly a reason for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaseaC (talk • contribs) 23:59, 22 September 2009
Delete Not noteworthy, taking a Snopes article and turning it into a Wiki one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WngLdr34 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 24 September 2009
Comment if this is deleted, remember to do something about the copyrighted image that curently exists under an FUR: File:Twin Towers sunrise.jpg – 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 11:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No terribly compelling arguments either way here, and certainly no consensus to delete. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manortown United

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't know enough about Irish football to say for sure, but this doesn't look like a sports team that would meet the notability criteria to me. Deletion template removed by ip. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are many similar teams here: Leinster Senior League (association football). Also Niall Quinn used to play for them but I'm not sure if that's enough to make my vote a keep. Spiderone 12:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also seen many teams lower down the pyramid or at the same level: Phoenix F.C. Navan Road, Wayside Celtic F.C. and St Francis F.C. Spiderone 15:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - won a trophy at the Milk Cup, a highly respected youth competition, but I don't think youth success is enough. And Spiderone, I don't think clubs should be notable just because a notable player once played for them, if so we'd have articles on thousands of pub teams that former-professionals have joined in later life! Giant Snowman 12:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bettia's findings below. Giant Snowman 08:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article on the LSL says its teams compete in the FAI Cup, so assuming that's correct would it pass muster in the same way that the rule of thumb for English clubs is eligibility to enter the FA Cup........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that, but it just says "teams" rather than "all teams", so it's likely only a few do. Either way, I've not been able to find any evidence that Manortown have competed. Giant Snowman 20:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I was going to remain neutral but since there's no evidence that they've played in the FAI Cup I'll have to say delete. Spiderone 20:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They may not have played in the FAI Cup, but they are playing in the FAI Junior Cup, which as I understand it is equivalent to the FA Trophy. This would be enough for the club to pass WP:FOOTYN, which is the general rule of thumb for club notability. Bettia (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the FAI Junior Cup and FA Trophy aren't similar - the latter consists of semi-professional adult teams, the former is a youth tournament! Giant Snowman 09:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, 'Junior' football in Ireland has the same definition as in Scotland - not a youth competition, just at a lower standard than 'senior' football. I'll look into this and see what I can dig up. Also, there is a separate competition for youth teams, the FAI Youth Cup. Bettia (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This team photo of the 2006 finalists seem to indicate that this is an adult tournament. Bettia (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or Jamie Oliver needs to have a serious word with the parents of the kid in goal ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, he's just a growing lad! But seriously, I googled 'FAI Junior Cup' and the images that came up showed spotty 16 year old kids! But you've proved notability, so I'm changing my vote. Giant Snowman 08:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- insufficient notability. Mukadderat (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - this article seems to be up for deletion. this seems unfair as the club are a well known dublin amateur soccer club with a respected history of bringing through young players who later have become professional players.

articles on similar clubs such Stillorgan Lakelands F.C. and Vale_View_Shankill_F.C. have been allowed and these clubs would not be as well known in the league system as Manortown.

this club has won trophies such as the Milk Cup and regularly competes at the FAI CUP and FAI Junior Cup, two trophies of some history and prestige in domestic soccer in Ireland.

The club has also been featured as the central theme of an RTE television program.

For these reasons, and that articles on clubs similar to itself have been accepted, i feel it would be grossly unfair if this article was deleted.

(ps. i am new to editing wikipedia, so i apologise if i have posted this in an incorrect location)

kind regardsMarno111 (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RTE aspect is certainly an interesting one. Although it was primarily about Niall Quinn, I dare say there was a fair bit on the programme about the club itself. I wonder if this would be enough to count as substantial third-party coverage, and therefore pass WP:N? Bettia (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bettia. matt91486 (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bettia. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After a mature discussion, there is broad and thoughtful disagreement on the key claims to notability. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Cronman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman was closed prior to the expiration of the seven day period when the article was speedy deleted. That decision was considered at deletion review, with the consensus being to relist the article here. As the closer of the deletion review, this nomination is procedural in nature. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep commander of a significantg military installation is notable DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So my dad, by virtue of being the base commander at one point in his military career is notable? This has to be one of the easiest to disprove attempts to expand notability that I've ever seen. People like to say Notability is not inherent, while I disagree with that cliche, it is rarely inherented, and in this case not.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there was a major battle at that base, and it got mention in newspapers at the time, and published in books, then yes, you'd be obviously notable. Read the articles, don't just glance briefly at them and jump to a conclusion. Dream Focus 12:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a genealogy database and the significance of the military installation does not confer notability onto its commander. Otto4711 (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have the kind of references needed to meet WP:BIO and appears to be a genealogical-type entry Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if being commander of a notable military installation confers notability (which I dispute), none of the sources represent enough information to create a biography of this person. All we have is a geneaology. Basically, we'd be stuck with nothing more than a stub that says, "he existed." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commander of a major military fortress in a major battle of the Great Northern War in the year 1700, it meets every requirement for notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per R.A.Norton. Tomas e (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a commander, he participated in major battles, he died in battle. Coverage on the great northern war still lacks alot. This article adds to it, and as such should not be deleted, but instead expanded. Omegastar (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't by any chance borrow the coverage argument from me, did you?[16] How this type of article help anyone to better understand the Great Northern War is a complete mystery to me. The level of detail is so great that it wouldn't even be useful to a historian. Unless someone finds more comprehensive sources, this man remains merely a statistic. Peter ^Isotalo 00:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you i was not part of the deletion review of this article nor did i read it through. I did not copy your argument. Now, this might not seem a fair comparison, but to take an example, the american civil war has hundreds of biographies related to it. The Great Northern War is sorely lacking in that area. I think some leeway should be given to historical articles, as the field of history is so enormous that much of it is still not covered in wikipedia. Let this article grow for a while, and see what comes of it. Omegastar (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't accusing of you of plagiarism, I was just pointing out that we appear to be using almost the exact same argument to promote radically different approaches to how to describe a topic for the general readership. Simply repeating yourself doesn't make anything clearer. You're still basically just saying a) similar articles exist and b) people whose historical records can't be expanded beyond a handful of sentences based on primary sources are somehow helpful in understanding the big picture. The former can never be argued with since it's a "oh, yes it is"-argument and the latter is in my opinion confusing accurate and wide coverage with a myopic level of detail.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, dying in battle is not a claim to significance/importance. Being a colonel does not notability make. And fighting in battles does not make one notable. Heck, all three combined do not do so. Not every colonel who fought and died from the civil war, WWI, WWII, vietnam, Korea, Gulf Coast, Desert Storm, Afganastan, Russian civil war, war of 1812, War of the Roses, 100 years War, etc are notable. Based upon the sources provided, he could have been some minor nobel or wealthy merchant or related to somebody important given an assignment, title and killed in the opening minutes of his first conflict. Remember being a colonel back then didn't necessarily mean career military or that you earned the position.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)EDIT: Per the article we know that he was a colonel for 20+ years, but that still doesn't tell us anything. Being a colonel does not make one notable nore does being a commander of an installation. The only way that I would accept being the commander of an installation would be if you could demonstrate the said installation was THE installation. There are only a few military installations/positions that warrant defacto articles---Commandant of Westpoint/Anapolis/Air Force Academy, Commander in Chief of one of the armed forces or major regions CINPAC for example. Being the base commander or regimental commander does not make one notable.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (sorry if my typing is off at all, but my head is throbbing and I am ridiculously congested...). Anyway, a commander in a major conflict verified in sources has legitimate encyclopedic value. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Omegastar as a notable military commander. It has plenty of good sources. Stubs are perfectly acceptable per WP:STUB. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial mentions don't make this dude notable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A more or less identical article on a certain Anders Örbom was deleted only days ago, and this seems to be an even more clear-cut case for deletion. WP:MILHIST doesn't appear to agree at all that any military commander of any notable military installation deserves a separate article. WP:N quite clearly specifies that "[s]ignificant coverage" is needed and that it should be "more than a trivial mention". Most importantly, there appears to be no relevant secondary source coverage whatsoever, which is probably the most reliable measurements of notability. Peter ^Isotalo 00:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any primary sources, can you point them out. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sparwenfeld and Lewenhaupt are primary sources as they are written by contemporaries and/or eyewitnesses. They might be published in edited and translated editions, perhaps even commented, but I see absolutely no secondary treatment, and certainly none that is relevant to Cronman other than in an off-hand way. Låstbom and von Stryk are only technically secondary sources, but what they do is merely to repeat primary source information. They don't comment on it and they attempt neither synthesis nor analysis. The rest, as we already know, is pure geneaology; who begat whom and other things that don't establish any kind of notability for Cronman. Peter ^Isotalo 06:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cronman's appearances in the Sparwenfeld diary are not used as a source in the article. The editor's paragraph detailing who Joachim Cronman is to the reader is used as the source. Lewenhaupt is a secondary source, whatever documents or letters or interviews he used to compile his biographies would have been the primary sources. Wikipedia doesn't ban primary sources, it just reminds the editor to use caution. It would be possible to incorrectly identify a Cronman mentioned in a letter or a diary or in the census, if you were not careful. I must remind you that you argued "For example Jon Stålhammar is well-known by Swedish historians for his detailed accounts of his life and the letters to his wife" arguing the opposite, that primary documents make this man notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Sparwenfeld isn't the source, he shouldn't be cited as one. And if so, how is the relevance from the translator/editor relevant? And if you seriously want to describe Lewenhaupt as a secondary source, you're going to have to game every possible definition of what defines a secondary source. You can't compare an almost threehundred-year-old source with modern day historical treatment. But all of this is really just irrelevant nitpicking when you're avoiding the crucial issue: every single source you've cited refers to Cronman in no significant manner. The sources themselves indicatethat, but more importantly, all the biographical information about Cronman himself is only a few sentences. If there was actually more info on him, and he was notable, you should've been able to compile more than a stub by now.

And please don't try to use my argument about Stålhammar on this case. Jon Stålhammar is notable because historians have actually used the letters he wroteas sources in their research, and there has been at least one popular historical book written about the family. There's no such thing as notability due to the mere existence of primary sources and I have never claimed that there is.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a difference in that Anders Örbom was not a commander. This man was much more notable then anders örbom. Omegastar (talk) 09:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this really has anything whatsoever to do with the complete lack of secondary source coverage, but this can be answered just as easily. See the link to WP:MILHIST for what the project seems to think about notability. Even as a commander Cronman isn't considered notable enough and he explicitly fails several other suggested criteria, most of which are merely derived from WP:N. Saying that he's (possibly) more notable than Örbom proves nothing except that he's more notable than someone who was even less notable. That he was slightly higher in rank and had slightly more famous offspring doesn't make him more relevant to Wikipedia. All that you're claiming here amounts to highly personal opinions without support in policy, historiograhpic practice or even a semblance of common sense.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the deletion of Anders Örbom appearing in the record of WikiProject Sweden's project alerts, so I assume he wasn't tagged for that project. I don't see how a recent deletion of an article which probably wasn't properly tagged can be used as a precedence. As a courtesy, please let relevant projects know about AfDs of relevance to them by using project tags! Tomas e (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Delete this indivdiual makes no claims to significance/importance, let alone notability. Having died in a war does not make one notable. Being a colonel does not make one notable. The sources are all trivial mentions (not about the subject) and mostly geneologies.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: Has input been requested from Wikiproject Sweden? I see 8 books listed in a English Google book search, and 6 of them appear to be Swedish. Perhaps more might be available on the Swedish version of Goggle.... or whatever search engine they primarily use...? But input from those able to access Swedish historical or educational archives and/or read the Swedish language might go far to more accurately assess notability. That the article requires expansion on the individual and his role in the battle and at the fortress, makes it difficult to say either easy keep or easy delete unless the best efforts can be made to ascertain just how notable this individual is to Sweden and to Swedish history. Anybody at WP:CSB care to do some digging? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia depopulates Wikiprojects are being abandoned. I have about a dozen unanswered technical questions about templates and SVGs that have gone unanswered. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is more that the only books indexed by Google are those that just happened to be at US Universities when they were scanned. Google hasn't scanned any books in Sweden, they just picked up what few books Harvard and other Universities happened to have in Swedish. It is another example of regional bias in Wikipedia and at Google. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which still begs the question. Has anyone actively searched Swedish historical or educational archives, or are some decisions to delete based only upon the few sources available through english google... being then being based upon WP:UNKNOWNHERE? If a common sense assumption can be made that a figure from Swedish military history might be notable in Sweden and logically be covered in Swedish historical & education archives, then that same commonsense would suggest bringing in persons from the various Projects who may be able to assist... and this might mean something more pro-active than simply listing it at the project's deletion notices. Contacting the authors of similar articles on Swedish history or Swedish historical figures figures might be prudent. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As he was from what is now Estonia and died in a battle in what is now Latvia, Sweden would not be the only place's print sources to be checked. Google books turns up Finnish sources, too, under the name "Joakim Cronman". Does anybody know what the Cyrillic form of the name would be?--Paularblaster (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Finnish book talks more about Cronman communicating with the King of Sweden, but I don't have access beyond what Google Books has in their snippet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Regimental colonel and commander of a major fortress is just the sort of person that would have received international press coverage at the time, especially as he died in battle. I wrote my doctorate about newspapers in the period 1620-1660, and I'd be happy to bet that if anybody digs out the newspapers of 1683, 1700 and 1703 (unfortunately not available on gnews) they'll find enough coverage to satisfy them. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Editing to add: since the sources cited don't actually make him commander (in the one case) or present at battle (in the other), this is coming close to looking like a very convincing hoax, but one that I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt until the new sources brought forward have been checked. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you seriously suggesting that we treat 18th century newspaper articles as any kind of secondary source material? This seems like a way to bend WP:RS to the point of breaking. Peter ^Isotalo 07:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, of course. Can you actually give any reason not to, beyond knee-jerk chronocism? --Paularblaster (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The gaping abyss that separates these writings from modern-day journalism is what bothers me. You don't have to resort to any "chronocism" to be concerned about people interpreting threehundred-year-old sources to their own liking. I think it's especially problematic if they would be used to assert the notability of essentially genealogical articles. Somewhere along the line we seem to have gone from just trying to write summaries of general history to doing our own research. Peter ^Isotalo 10:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would presumably be the gaping abyss between a time when newspapers had to sell to a fairly limited number of serious people week after week, without subsidy from advertisers, and the time when they made their money by entertaining rather than informing. My own experience is that journalistic coverage then was easily as reliable (and unreliable) as it is now. Nobody would have to "interpret" anything: go and see if there's coverage of him. If there is, he's notable; if not, then not. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say to this. It's really difficult to take a comparison between the limited publications in an early modern fiscal military absolutist monarchy and the press of modern democracies seriously. I'm sure there are the occasional factoids or colorful quotes that could be useful in some cases, but building an article on it is just not serious. My default opinion is that anyone trying to use these types of sources on Wikipedia would be engaging in original research. Peter ^Isotalo 16:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"occasional factoids or colorful quotes" are more in the line of modern newspapers. Publishers 300 years ago had to deal with paper and printing skills being at a premium, as well as a shortage of advertising revenue, and, yes, a government that could come down heavy if they thought people were being uppity - as a result, newspapers tended to give bare summaries of factual information, the main distortions being failure to report things that might get them into trouble, or the reporting of dubious outcomes as outright victories (both things that can be found in 20th-century newspapers - but perhaps you only accept 21st-century newspapers?). They sometimes got things wrong (again, modern newspapers do too), but if they mention a person you can rest assured that he or she was notable. --Paularblaster (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you're forgetting is that increased temporal distance requires more specific contextual knowledge. Merely understanding all the terminology, literary allusions, etc. requires good overall knowledge of the period and usually some experience with these types of writings. There are endless possibilities for misunderstanding without secondary treatment. Modern news sources are overall infinitely more transparent to modern readers even if they aren't perfect, and they also have completely different standards of factual accuracy. And you are, of course, making a circular argument concerning notability. Early modern newspapers certainly discuss a lof of non-notable things and all people mentioned in them are not per se notable. And just to remind ourselves and everyone reading this, we're still discussing purely speculative sources that no one has seen or read about. Peter ^Isotalo 12:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (userfication if necessary) though if further sources show up proving his notability, we can recreate; but it's got to be better than the geneology at the moment. Buckshot06(prof) 22:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was mentioned in that many books, and is famous for being the commander of a famed fortress during a notable battle in a notable war. Notice how the fortress is a blue link, as is the battle, and the war itself? By clicking on these and reading up on the information, you can understand why this person is notable. Dream Focus 12:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He was mentioned in geneologies... the sources provided are geneologies of notable individuals. His father was a member of the nobility, his father's children would warrant mention in his father's article. But the fact that he is the son of somebody notable, who was later a colonel, is NOT a claim of notability or significance. So far we have yet to see a source make more than a mention of him---and those are geneologies.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence of notability, just a commander of a base during a battle, all historically minor. The battle itself doesn't even have an article. Also, this is really just a genealogy listing which fails WP:NOTDIR. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Arguments over whether the position of commander (at the dawn of the 18th century in scandanavia, about which we are all experts) is a big deal or not frankly means nothing to me. Earlier this month, there was endless debate over whether WWII vet Thomas A. Edson was important because he won a Silver Star, but the deletion decision (I !voted delete) came down to a lack of any sources to show notability. Here we appear to have sources that support notability, and actually multiple sources that are quite old, in a time period where they didn't waste time writing about pop culture fluff like Bikini Baristas (a subject sure to soon have an article here which will easily meet the notability bar). In my opinion, inclusion or deletion of this article shouldn't rise or fall on a subjective opinion that Swedish sources aren't quite good enough (oh but would be if they wrote some amount more), or because the editors who contributed to this article used a geneological format to convey information, unless a professor of swedish history comes in here and tells us this dude was weak sauce. --Milowent (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at the sources? The sources amount to nothing more than geneologies showing that this person did in fact exist. They essentially boil down to so-and-so was a colonel who was born in XXXX as the son of Y and father of Z. The sources are trivial in coverage.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article makes credible claims of notability and provides ample sources to establish meeting WP:N. Alansohn (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the article, the only facts about his life are "Joachim Cronman (1638-1703) was a Colonel and the Commandant of the Neumünde fortress where he died on March 5, 1703 during the Battle of Neumünde of the Great Northern War." The same could mostly be said about thousands of others. The fact that he was the Colonel doesn't really make that much difference. The rest of the article is just a geneology. The article fails to assert any real significance, and therefore would probably fall within the realms of CSD#A7. This makes the question of notability fairly clean cut. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is the first sentence of the article, but the article continues. Marriage and children and regiments he commanded. Every biography has info on marriage and children, if it didn't it would be incomplete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is that there are "thousands of others" that were the Commandant of the Neumünde fort? That certainly is not true. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative to delete could possible be redirect to Battle of Neumünde, but that in itself is a redirect to Daugavgrīva, which doesn't even mention Joachim Cronman. If the battle isn't notable enough to have an article, then the Colonel who is only known because of the battle probably isn't either. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea: why don't you go to the library, dig out some books about the Great Northern War, and write decent articles about the Battle of Narva (during which Cronman was apparently commander of the Narva fortress, one of the most famous fortifications in Europe) and the Battle of Neumünde (just outside Riga, now the national capital of Latvia), and then come back and redirect to them? (Editing to add:) the Russians fighting the Swedes for control of Riga is not exactly non-notable; saying we don't have an article on it says more about wikipedia than it does about the notability of the battle. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a colonel and commander, participation in battles, and dying in one is quite simply not enough for encyclopedic notability – in my opinion, in the apparent consensus opinion at WP:MILMOS#NOTE, and in the opinion of WP:N (lacks the required significant coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources; and yes, I apply that to a biography from the 17th century as well). Amalthea 14:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It certainly meets that standard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is he discussed in detail? Not in the linked citations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." Detail is defined next as "no original research is needed to extract the content", that is how much detail is required. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been to a library and consulted the histories of Swedish Livonia and the Great Northern War to reach that conclusion? Until you have, you're just saying "if it's not on google I don't want to know, and I don't think anybody else should either". --Paularblaster (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I'm not saying that at all. I'm looking at both what search engines tell me and what's in the article, and neither is enough for encyclopedia noteworthiness, in my opinion. Amalthea 15:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not for a paper encyclopedia, I'll grant you - unless, of course, it was a specialist encyclopedia. But with wikipedia not being paper, and aiming for the "sum of human knowledge", we surely have room for somebody covered in multiple third-party sources over a number of centuries and in a variety of languages? --Paularblaster (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do. If that person really has significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources. Otherwise he is not notable enough for inclusion. On Wikipedia, the general rule of thumb is that the subject of an article is assumed non-notable (after a sufficient time has passed for material to be added) unless proved otherwise. We can't just keep an article on the off-chance that there might possibly be some source that asserts notability about him which is conveniently unknown to everyone participating. I believe that there are a sufficient number of people wanting to keep the article that, if there were any sources that assert notability, they would have been added by now. There isn't even any suggestion in the article that the subject is notable, let alone any sources suggesting it. Maybe there should be an article about the battle/war, but not about this Colonel (see WP:BIO1E). —gorgan_almighty (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions of editors seems to be equally divided as to whether a Commander in Sweden in the late 1600s is already sufficiently established by the existing references. Rules of thumb are good, but we are here for consensus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem seems that not even the rather meager references you have provided seem to support what is currently being said the article (and in extension the two Neumünde articles). I have now looked at all the relevant references in the article, and actually taken the time to trace the citations they have used. Birgegård (the translator and editor of Sparwenfelts diary) mentions no more than is visible in the Google Books snippet, where she clearly cites Elgenstierna II 1926, p. 100. The only other info is that Sparwenfelt stays at a manor leased by a Cronman (though there is actually no info about which Cronman). Elgenstierna in turn is a standard geneaology which cites Lewenhaupt, which is already in the article. Lewenhaupt in turn has basically the same facts, and cites Anrep and army payroll records. Anrep adds nothing which isn't reported in the other sources. All these sources basically state the exact same facts (three assignments as an officer, date of death, spouses, children), but none of these very relevant facts:

A birth date. None of the sources seem to mention one, not even an guesstimate.
Participation in any battles whatsoever, neither Narva nor Neumünde.
A death in battle. Lewenhaupt only writes d. 5/3 1703 i Neumünde, which means he died in Neumünde, but not in battle. The term used by Lewenhaupt for those who did is stupade ("fell"). Other entries which read d. are sometimes specified with things like i pesten ("in the plague"), but not always. That means Cronman could have died of any number of diseases, drowning, falling off his hourse or just passing away from old age (the man was after all probably in his 60s).
Any mention of a battle in Neumünde (Dünamünde) at all. I know from other sources that it changed hands several times, but none of the sources say anything about the Russians taking it in 1703. They do appear to have captured it in 1710, though, after Poltava.[17]
Any mention of Neumünde as a "fort" or "fortress", and certainly not a major one. This is also fairly evident from the term used by Birgegård, which is "fortlet". This is her translation of the Swedish skans, which is a term for a fortification but not necessarily anything major.

Cronman's notability according to you and pretty much all those voting to keep seems to depend almost entirely on these facts; participation in two major battles, command of a major/significant fortification, death on the battlefield. Since I've now actually taken that time and done the homework despite some rather sloppy referencing, I'd really like to know where all these claims come from. Peter ^Isotalo 11:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, thats a very good and commendable load of research you've done there. I notice that someone has put a {{rescue}} tag up, although I don't think that's appropriate when the notability is in dispute. Either way, I'm also putting up a "factual accuracy disputed" tag to reflect your findings. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also just noticed that there seems to be no place of birth for Cronman. It might be in some of the English-language sources, but then it would still need proper citation. Peter ^Isotalo 16:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of the facts definately seems to be a huge problem with this article. Notability issues aside, its quite fundamental that you can't have an article when there's nothing verifiable you can say about the subject. Unless a proper source of information (of any reliable type) can be found, I fail to see how this article is salvageable. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Library in Sweden wrote back: "Joachim Cronman has a paragraph in "Historisk tidskrift för Finland" and "Kungl. fortifikationens historia" vol 6:2. ... You should also contact The Military Archives (Krigsarkivet) for more information." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what this is supposed to prove. It certainly doesn't explain where all the unsupported facts came from. Peter ^Isotalo 18:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It proves there are more print sources that might demonstrate notability - indeed, their very existence might prove notability since the existence of third-party sources is effectively our criterium for whether a subject is notable. Of course, it would be useful if we had a reference that would enable them to be checked as to whether these are mere mentions or substantive coverage (what issue/date of Historisk tidskrift för Finland, for example). --Paularblaster (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Once the claim that he died in battle has been debunked, it seems that there is no claim of notability anymore. Entire text on this article at the time I am typing this is "Joachim Cronman (dead 1703) was a Colonel and the Commandant of the Neumünde fortress where he died on March 5, 1703." There should be no bar to recreating this article if sources are brought forward at a later date. Abductive (reasoning) 20:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dying in battle is not a claim to fame. His notability is as Commander of Neumünde. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, no claim to notability. Commanding a fort is routine. Abductive (reasoning) 23:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a "fortlet" according to the sources we have. The rest is so far just Richards assumptions. Peter ^Isotalo 07:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commanding two forts in Livonia (first the famous Narva, and then the fort between Riga and the sea) during Peter the Great's conquest of Livonia is perhaps more notable than "commanding a fort" full stop? --Paularblaster (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fair-use photograph of the fort on Latvian wikipedia. It looks to be much the same size as the castle at Cape Town, one of the most notable fortifications in the history of the world. --Paularblaster (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fort near Cape Town? Abductive (reasoning) 09:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Paul is referring to the Castle of Good Hope. But he's also making a lot of unfounded assumptions. There is nothing in the article or the sources about Cronman being commandant at Narva. What it does say is that he was assigned to it as colonel of a Scanian garrison regiment. I don't know if that is a de facto assignment as fort commander, but I'm not going to try to guess either. Even if it was, it's more than 20 years before Peter the Great made any move on Livonia. And while it seems reasonable to assume that the structure in the picture is the same that existed before 1703, it would be nice to have something backing it up.

I should add that there are discrepancies between Lewenhaupt and Elgenstierna on the one hand and Anrep on the other concerning Cronman's death. The former two, who both cite the latter as their source on this fact, claim that he died in Neumünde but Anrep doesn't actually say that. He only says he was commandant and that he died in 1703. Lewenhaupt does use army payrolls as additional sources, which could explain why he has more accurate info. However, none of the writers say anything about when Cronman was Commandant. Neumünde is listed after the assignment to the Savolax and Nyslott regiments, but that only really tells us that it was after 1685, and war didn't break out until fifteen years later. What's making me believe that all of this is just pure speculation is that there is no mention of Cronman participating in any battles whatsoever, especially in a source like Lewenhaupt, which is specifically about Charles XII's army officers. If he was actually commandant of Neumünde when the war broke out, it's rather odd that there is no mention of his participating in the 1700 action when Saxon troops captured the fort and in 1701 when the Swedes recaptured it (according to Nordisk familjebok[18]). Peter ^Isotalo 12:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no facts of military notability are presented. Mukadderat (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMHO, the delete arguments are stronger than the ones for keep. As there is a distinct lack of direct, detailed coverage of this person in secondary sources, he fails WP:BIO. He also fails the WP:MILMOS notability criteria (though those are only an essay, so their relevance here is perhaps limited. The argument that WP is NOT a genealogy service are also hard to ignore. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Paularblaster makes a compelling case to keep this article and develop it further as more sources emerge. We are not restricted to use of the internet and there is no pressing reason to delete as this person is long dead. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you, but I don't think I do make a compelling case for keeping the article - only a fair case for being disgusted and distrustful of the general prevalence of WP:UNKNOWNHERE in discussions like this. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one voting to delete in this AfD has used that type of argument. Peter ^Isotalo 21:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Did you not notice what happened when I did look up offline references? Peter ^Isotalo 07:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per Orangemike below. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobget

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable neologism ThaddeusB (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Article written by trademark holder in attempt to spread usage. Miami33139 (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted as blatant spam by coiner of term, per Miami33139. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC) (used to live in 33054, among other places)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timo Hannay

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable science writer/publisher. Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal, not a vote. This person is documented in multiple, independent, reliable sources - as evidenced by a few interviews that are not his own publications. That does not mean a reader is interested in them. I could go either way. Are there any information showing interest in the subject? Miami33139 (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep under WP:PROF. A search using "Timo Hannay" on HPoP yields 30 papers, 649 citations, and a low h-index of 6. The most cited paper has a respectable 311 citations, then 112, 83 and down quickly from there. I am not sure about WP:BIO. Gnews turns up a good number of news items (about 40), many related to his web publication work with Nature. Most of the traction seems to stem from the prestige of the magazine. One recent news article states that: “Nature's head of web publishing Timo Hannay confessed that of the firm's myriad Web 2.0 projects, only a couple bring in any revenue.”--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although he rates a weak keep on WP:Prof he is clearly not concentrating an academic research now. His science communication and web publishing activities appear to be notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep satisfies general notability clearly to me. is it verifiable? clearly. he is the level of a superstar... no, but notable yes. --Buridan (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Timo Hannay is well known in the domain of Science publishing/communication.--Plindenbaum (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hannay is a key person in science publishing. He runs nature.com, the online arm of the Nature publishing group. Michael Nielsen (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." Wikipedia:BIO#Creative_professionals - numerous interviews and presentations at various conferences and events testify to the fact that he is an important figure in the field of innovation in online academic publishing. Rakerman (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Timo Hannay's work trying to pry open science (the web review experiment) makes him quite notable in the field, even if you would deny the notabilit of his work at Nature, helping Run the sci-foo camp unconference and in general helping advance scienctific journals off their moribund paper based roots. Cdibona (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Timo's work as publisher at Nature.com is not strictly academic so the guidelines at WP:Prof do not really apply. The criteria at Wikipedia:BIO#Creative_professionals is more appropriate. His stature and influence in the science publishing community is probably best demonstrated by the fact that he is an invited speaker at virtually every conference or workshop on the future of science and science publishing. His work at Nature.com in particular has transformed the online offering of what remains the world premiere venue for science communication. While Nature clearly gives him a platform there is an additional argument that holding such a position at Nature is notable in its own right. In addition he is a co-founder of SciFoo camp. Cameron Neylon (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No question about that. Notable person, head of Nature.com. Co-organizer of the Science Foo Camp taking place in Googleplex every year. Berci Mesko (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment looks like a snowball to me....---Buridan (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes time to close. Jim Carmel (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBC - List of Animals

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not quite sure what this article is supposed to be. It starts off as a lead about a part of the BBC, but then just contains a list of dinosaurs featured in BBC series. Is it salvageable at all? ninety:one 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The answer is no: it's basically a list of the animals from Walking with Monsters, Walking with Dinosaurs, Walking with Beasts, The Ballad of Big Al, Chased by Dinosaurs and Sea Monsters: A Walking with Dinosaurs Trilogy, all compiled into one page. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I really don't like destroying the hard work of other editors but I don't see any salvation. The introductory passages are better done at BBC Natural History Unit and the list of dinosaurs is a compilation of lists already in the program articles. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unencyclopedic as stated above. Tavix | Talk 00:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even know what to say about it that hasn't already been said. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The other users have been quite accurate here. --WngLdr34 (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I feel bad about this. If the article was somewhat coherent and we even knew what it was supposed to be, it would be keep-able, the lead seems to be notable at a glance, but the rest is, well, I don't actually know. Unencyclopedic. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but Rename. The consensus here appears to be narrowly in favor of Keeping the article. The primary criticism of the article was WP:BLP1E, which notes that individuals should not have articles if their notability is related to one event (or, as here, to one set of events closely related enough to be considered one for these purposes). Even then, several who recommended Delete noted that a merge would work as well, or that the information should be kept somewhere. Several on the Keep side of the debate also noted the concern, and recommended a rename of the article. So the result is that we have both sides of the debate seeking to keep some of the information by moving it to a new title.

As noted below, the debate on where to move this article should take place on its talk page. The most frequently cited target for such a move was Shona Holmes incident, which seems to be the most neutral of the possible move targets - but that discussion is beyond the scope of this debate.

One final note - the article does need some significant cleaning up, and I'm surprised more people didn't note that here. Again, not material to this closing, but I thought it wise to mention. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shona Holmes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting. This article still has nothing about her and it's been over two months now. This should be deleted. The artcle fails this and this and it's been two months and the article is still the same way. There is no info about herself on the article just something that made the news IE her so called health story.Fire 55 (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC) I should have mentioned this before. I put the debate she started under the article Health care reform in the United States.--Fire 55 (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked our nominator's attempt to merge this article with Health care reform in the United States, prior to the establishment of any consensus to do so. I left a request on its talk page for comments from contributors to that article about the appropriateness of a big influx of material on Shona Holmes. Geo Swan (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've contributed paragraph sized additions about the Shona Holmes incident(s) to the articles Health care in Canada and Comparison of Canadian and American health care systems, here and here. Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: In the opinion of at least one contributor to Health care reform in the United States coverage of the Shona Holmes incident does not fit in that article. They excised everything our nominator cut and paste from this article, except the section on "Democrats Abroad reaction". Geo Swan (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are tons of stories like this where a person goes to US to get healthcare or vice versa someone comes to Canada. So why should we give this person her own bio page and not the other people. When in reality we know no more about her than we do the other people. This article is just a story of what see did to go to the US for healthcare. It's not notable.--Fire 55 (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I almost voted merge but having re-read WP:Notable and WP:Not News I think it's going to have to be delete because of this:
"Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."

Though this woman may have received significant coverage at the beginning of the health care debate her importance in proportion to the overall topic is negligible. I can't find any mention of her on any major news outlets or in political discourse at this stage of the game. She made no lasting contribution to the healthcare-reform debate in the US (or Canada as far as I can see). As such, although the article has been much improved and expanded since the first AfD I can't see that any of it is notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

completely puzzled by this. Iys not a single event but many. She has repeated these claims not just in numerous TV interviews, but also on web sites promoting politial advertising and lobbying. Her misleading statements are still being perpertrated on the interweb thingy.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong retain or at a minimum rename as per User:flatterworld's suggestion (see below). This lady gave interviews that have featured on TV and in TV commercials and she features prominantly on campaign web sites opposing health care reform in the U.S. if it resembles the system as it exists in Canada. She has appeared as a witness before congress to tell her story (tho again she was not exactly very honest about the condition she had and its seriousness). The health care issue is still one that is very live in the United States and this article is therefore highly topical and enlightening. It should definitely not be deleted.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did put most of the stuff in Health care reform in the United States. This article is about her NOT the debate on health care. See MUST be notable to get her own article. Again they're tons of people who get interviewed on TV, so why is she so special. That's the question here. Why does she deserve her own article.--Fire 55 (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, practically all the material you cut and pasted from this article into Health care reform in the United States was stripped out as off-topic. Geo Swan (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per BLP1E. This is certainly worth mentioning somewhere, but essentially this woman is a sad case who's being used by the extreme right in her country. The article seems to just ram home that she doesn't have cancer - there's nothing there about her. If she turns into a 'Joe The plumber', then perhaps we can have an article. Until then, meh. Delete. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article properly talks about the controversy also. I'd say that as a specific point, this is better than lumping it into a very comprehensive article . It's totally out of place there , as POV overemphasis on one particular example. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if we make the article about her controversy and her case, rather than her as a person? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy Keep and trout the nom. This is the third time they've nominated it, using the same "logic" all three times, with the last time being around a month ago. Also, subject has the notability required ot pass GNG, and BLP1E is out the window considering the interviews she gave, thus showing she has no desire to remain low profile, as BLP1E specifies. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't count the 2nd nom a nom would you?????? Let's do a google news search. What do you get. NOTHING. but ONE story on her court case. The rest are a month old and are just mentioning her.--Fire 55 (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not have to do whether the person wants to be low profile but, rather, if the the sources deal with the event or the person. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I DO count the second, as it came right on the heels of the first. When you didn't get what you wanted, you renominated it for the exact same reasons. And when it was suggested to go to WP:DRV, you went there and again tried to re-fight the AFD. And now, just over a month later, we're back, yet again. And you keep waving WP:BLP1E in my face, but I don't buy that it applies in this situation. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Health care reform in the United States#Shona Holmes Incident. A classic BLP1E. That section contains all we need to say on the topic. Fences&Windows 23:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Now abstaining. Fences&Windows 21:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (sigh) Am I going to have to remind participants in this {{afd}} that the wikipedia is not solely an American project? Holmes' case triggered vigorous comment up here in Canada. As I pointed out in the first {tl|afd} -- if merge made sense -- there would be multiple targets Comparison of Canadian and American health care systems and Health care in Canada. If an article has multiple targets to which it could be merged, I regard that as a strong argument that those articles should not be merged. Geo Swan (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seeing how I'm not American, you don't need to remind me of that. Make your points without resorting to ad hominem, please. A topic can be covered in more than one place in the encyclopedia; if the Shona Holmes case has relevance to those two articles, then feel free to include material on it in those articles. This doesn't require a merge. Fences&Windows 17:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC) p.s. You can also link to the section in the US health care reform article from those articles. Fences&Windows 17:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And what is the advantage you see in deleting this article? I suggest that deleting the main article on Shona Holmes, and having separate Shona Holmes sections in multiple article will lead to multiple pernicious maintenance problems.
      1. Those separate sections could overlap -- and as they diverged they would likely end up contradicting one another. That is far from ideal.
      2. If we deleted the Shona Holmes article, and added a Shona Holmes incident section to every appropriate releated article, then where would Shona Holmes point? Personally, I think redirection to subsection heading is totally inappropriate in article space, because the current wikimedia software doesn't support operations like "what links here" when the target of a wikilink is a subsection heading. It is far more appropriate to have a central article about her incident, and the separate related articles have just enough about her to set the context to the link to the main article about her and her incidents.
      3. We already have considerable notable content in the main article on Shona Holmes that would not appropriately fit in any of the related articles. Geo Swan (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Keep or rename -- Holmes is notable, perhaps not as notable as "Joe the plumber", but, up here in Canada you can find lots of people who will react to her name, and remember elements of her story. Last week TVOntario had an hour-long debate on health care. About a minute into the show, prefacing the debate, they played one of Ms Holmes ads. The participants in the debate kept referring to Ms Holmes, and her case. As I watched it I kept thinking, "I am glad that reason prevailed, and we kept this article. Podcasts are here video podcast, audio podcast. Geo Swan (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objections to renaming this article the Shona Holmes incident or Shona Holmes incidents, or reasonable equivalent. Geo Swan (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Up here in Canada I say Shona Holmes and no one know who she is. I live in Canada and the funny thing is I was having a discussion about the Health Care thing with my friends and I brought up Shona Holmes and they all said WHO?? Sorry, but I don't by your point on how people in Canada knows her, since I'm from Canada and no one I know knows who see is. Nevertheless they are still only mentioning her in the sense of the health care debate and not her. Do you know her birthdate, where see was born, her education, her job background? Those what NEEDS to be in a bio to make it notable. --Fire 55 (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, we won't hold it against you that you have friends who don't follow current events. Geo Swan (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that a biography is not complete if it doesn't contain the subject's birthdate, education, etc is an bad argument -- and one not supported by policy. (I just checked Wikipedia:Notability (people) -- it says nothing about birthdates or education.) I address claims like this in a pair of essays I wrote The earliest sockpuppet to be unmasked... and "False Geber" and what a biography should contain. Basically there are individuals who clearly should have an article, for whom the mundane details of their life are unknown. Geo Swan (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Give it up. I'm not even willing to read the arguments put forward for a THIRD nomination in as many months. I consider this to be in bad taste. - BalthCat (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy, guideline or essay puts forth "bad taste" as a keep reason? The fact that you aren't even willing to read the arguments speaks volumes. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover technically this is only a 2nd nomination. Just look at the 2nd nom.--Fire 55 (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, when considering how seriously we should take this third nomination, why should we ignore the second nomination you made? Why didn't you complete the DRV you started? Geo Swan (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I secretly read the arguments after I said that. :) Therein I learned that not only was this the third nom, but the third nom from the same person. After the nom failed I would have expected him to take the discussion as to what to do with the article to talk. Alas, this person felt it was more important to AfD *again* rather than do something productive. In all honesty this article should be, at most, renamed to Shona Holmes incident or somesuch, which is a discussion that could be carried out on talk, rather than in yet another AFD. (ps: No one said that the "bad taste" comment was connected to the fact I chose keep. That was your assumption.) - BalthCat (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Health care reform in the United States per WP:BLP1E. The article and sources do not deal with the person but rather her case and the use and misuse of it. If any information is useful in other articles, that can be merged there as well. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would appreciate you responding to the point I made in this comment -- if a merge really made sense, then why not merge to Comparison of Canadian and American health care systems and Health care in Canada? Geo Swan (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my opinion, the primary notability has been in the topic of US Health care reform. When did you decide she was notable enough for an article? I would also consider BalthCat's suggestion of rename to something like Shona Holmes incident to be satisfactory. The point is the event is notable, she is clearly not. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main point of this article is already in that article (health care reform in US). So the main point of this article is there. Which means this article is useless and should be deleted.--Fire 55 (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the impact in Canada of a Canadian's actions be in a broad American-topic article? The article is about ALL Healthcare reform in the US. That article will have to expand over time, pushing out the already substantial entry on Shona Holmes. It is a poor choice for relocation. - BalthCat (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still the WP:ONEVENT that I thought it was in the first AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Precedent-setting law-suit initiated in 2005; (2) Allowed her case to be used in ads shown in the US health care debate. Could you please explain why you don't recognize these as two events? Geo Swan (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe that I can answer this: It is one event because the event is her claim that she could not receive medical care in a timely manner in Ontario due to the health care system and the ads simply used this case as fodder. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - WP:BLP1E, "biography" that is deviod of biographical information; article seems like a coatrack for a debate on health care. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The coatrack essay raises some interesting points. I wouldn't suggest we ignore it just because it is an essay, and not a policy or guideline. But I do think it is reasonable to remind those who call upon it as if it were a policy that it is not a policy. I think it is reasonable to ask those who call upon its authority as if it were a policy to be more specific. Note: the essay does not recommend deletion as a solution to a perceived coatrack problem. It recommends trimming the biased sections. Deletion is advice reserved for when good faith efforts to fix the article failed. Let me point out that there are no concerns of bias raised on the article's talk page. So, I suggest that calling for deletion, on the authority of the non-policy WP:COATRACK is extremely premature. When people call upon the authority of coatrack I think it is reasonable to expect them to be specific about which passages in the article they think are problematic. I think it is reasonable to expect them to be specific about which of the dozen or so example in the essay they think most closely resemble the article under discussion. So tell me, is it the "wongojuice"? Geo Swan (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would not quote the coatrack essay in that it talks too much about bias but this article is a coatrack in that it pretends to be a biography of a person when it is really about a political event. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So *rename* it. - BalthCat (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that having an article under the name of one person does not make it a biograpaphy. The article as it stands merely says who she is and why she achieved some (albeit small) notability. And that I think is enough. In fact I would resist any attempt to make it a biography. Adding her age and year of birth is an indication that some people are trying to make it biographical. These things are not related to her notoriaty.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no personal notability, no info. Twri (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People want to know about Holmes because she told her story in advertisements and before Congress. She has made herself a public figure. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope no one is doubting that people want to know about her, she has an intriguing story, I just don't think this is the forum for people to find out about her. Interest doesn't make it encyclopedic. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People want to know about her because they want to know the circumstances of her claim about having her treatment delayed. What supposedly happens in cases like hers is a major component of the US health care debate. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Textbook BLP1E. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per BLP1E. There are plenty of sources, some of which do cover the subject. But she is notable for one event and one event only (apologies for mixing the commonly understood meaning of notability, rather than WP:N in there) and the article content reflects that. There is copious coverage of the salient event and then the sources mostly discuss the health care debate. I would prefer a merger over deletion, but I don't think deletion is out of bounds. Protonk (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't you overlooking her precedent setting 2007 court case? It is the first challenge of its kind of Ontario's health care system. Signifcant money hangs on the result. Could you please explain why you don't recognize this as a separate "event"? Geo Swan (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not overlooking it, per se. but we have this problem where we build biographical articles out of news stories and analysis on related events, leaving the biographies impossible to square w/ NPOV or even make complete as a record of their life. I don't think we can have a fundamentally neutral article on someone who is only known because and through news reports of a tragedy, scandal or goof (both because and through are important words there). What we have are articles about scandals organized by persons. Regardless of the import of the scandal, the article should probably go. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I really hope you will make a greater effort to explain this view of neutrality. Almost exactly four years ago, in the very first {{afd}} I participated in, a senior administrator made an assertion I found deeply surprising. She asserted that the wikipedia should not have any articles on topics related to Guantanamo, because those topics were "inherently POV", and could only serve as opportunities for "America-bashing". I thought that assertion was unsupportable. I thought about it and decided that topics are not biased. Topics don't have an "inherent POV". Only our representations can be biased -- or neutral. I decided that there was no topic that couldn't be presented from an acceptably neutral point of view, provided those working on it make enough effort -- make enough effort and are open to the questions and criticism of civil challengers, and willing to make compromises.
    - So, about this particular topic, what do regard as the insurmountable barrier to neutrality? Are you able to single out a passage that you regard as the one that most lapses from neutrality? If so, are you sure that, after a discussion, a compromise that was neutral couldn't be arrived at?
    - I am frankly confused as to how you connected the question as to whether she was known for multiple events with this general neutrality problem -- that applies to all biographical articles. Should I ask you to try to explain this? Geo Swan (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry that some other admin made a totally erroneous statement in another AfD. All I'm explaining is my reasoning behind why I apply BLP1E in AfDs. I also will note that the reason why an inherently neutral article is impossible is completely different than the assertion that admin gave. Guantanamo is an example where views (and sources) are polarized, but not scarce. This subject is something of an example of where sources are scarce with respect to the person but not scarce with respect to the incident. So the article on the person gets written as an article on the incident, which makes it exceedingly difficult if not impossible to write an appropriate article. Protonk (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the reply. I still don't understand why you don't see this as a BLP2e. I would still welcome an explanation of the BLP1e interpretation from you. I would still welcome a specific passage that you thought lapsed from neutrality. I will point out that that deletion policies recommend addressing concerns over neutrality on the talk page -- not tried by anyone with this article -- not deletion? Geo Swan (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep with or without a rename. This is evocative of the various 'stories' circulating during the US presidential campaign. People look to Wikipedia to separate fact from fiction and get the full story. That's what a respected encyclopedia is supposed to provide. This deserves its own article, but perhaps something like "Shona Holmes Controversy' would be a better title. Flatterworld (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Abort this article because of the 1 event rule in WP:BLP per the Testmaster! Boo Yah!! Testmasterflex (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but rename). There are a few issues that complicate here. First, as I understand it, "Shona Holmes" is not the name that this woman uses in her day-to-day life, but her maiden name. This, for me, alleviates some of the WP: BLP concerns. Second, this has been a big enough controversy that the public deserves a balanced one-stop account -- something that wikipedia should aim to provide. One way or the other, however, the article should be renamed, because it is not and never will be a biography of this woman, but rather a description of an episode that brought her 15 minutes. So at the very least something like Shona Holmes health insurance controversy. Bucketsofg 18:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a total change of heart - keep, but rename to focus on the controversy, not on her. There's bucket loads of coverage, both in the US and Canada, and the press coverage precedes her use as a poster-child for the American Right. My previous opposition was, I recognise, partly based on IDONTLIKEIT, as I think her case is ridiculous. Fences&Windows 01:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename, e.g. to Shona Holmes health insurance controversy as suggested by Bucketsofg. It shouldn't be set up as a BLP (per WP:BLP and Wikipedia:BIO1E#People_notable_only_for_one_event) but should explicitly refer in the title to the particular issue relating to the media attention Ms. Holmes has received. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked the participants in this discussion, who voiced a BLP1e, without addressing the counter-arguments, that this article is a BLP2e or BLP3e, to return here to explain why they discounted those counter-arguments. Bearian did address those counter-arguments -- but on my talk page. He or she states the 2007 lawsuit can't be precedent-setting until it is concluded. IANAL, but it seems to me that if a lawsuit is in an area where no existing precedent exists, a lawsuit can be described as "precedent-setting", before its conclusion, because either way it concludes will be precedent setting. It does not require a lapse from WP:CRYSTAL to describe this lawsuit as precedent-setting. Geo Swan (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A lawsuit only creates a precedent if it results in a substantive change to the current legal status of such a case. That is, if the court finds in favour of the government in this lawsuit, it's not setting a precedent — it's simply upholding the status quo. It will be precedent-setting if, and only if, it finds in favour of Holmes. And even if it does, it'll be the court case that's notable, not Holmes herself. Chaoulli v. Quebec is notable, frex, but that doesn't automatically mean that Jacques Chaoulli automatically needs his own separate article too — that article really, truly only exists to retroactively justify this one. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WRT to "precedent setting" -- you make a good point that if the court upholds the status quo it is not, actually, a precedent. I withdraw that description. Nevertheless, it is an important challenge. Without regard to what some of us here might personally think of the merits of her case, the half dozen references about her case, included in the article, all describe it as a serious challenge. I believe that is enough to establish it as an "event", for the purposes of evaluating whether this article is a BLP1e.
    - Similarly, If her story was open and shut, if it only involved her appearing in an ad, offering a cautionary tale of her experience of Canadian health care, for Americans, and she hadn't reported death threats, and if various sources hadn't pointed out that the medical condition she claimed was a form of life-threatening brain cancer wasn't life-threatening, and wasn't brain cancer, I could see someone asserting that her appearing in the ad was a single event. But I am mystified as to why the death threats, and the medical experts who point out the discrepancies in her claims are not recognized as separate events. Geo Swan (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a single-event person. No evidence of legal influence of her lawsuit. Mukadderat (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You crazy Canucks. Enough coverage over a long enough time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment When people make claims for political reasons that get wide attention in the media , it is reasonable that those who see these claims will want some reliable NPOV source of information. With our wide diversity of editors, we are uniquely suited to this role. The only thing necessary is to show that media use of the event is not transient and local, and I think that has been shown. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is still an event and not worthy of a biography. Coverage of the event belongs in an article about the event or Wikinews. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG's analysis that this case (not the person) has generated plenty of coverage, Wikipedia should have an article on it (nowhere does it say Wikipedia is Not Snopes), and that it would place an UNDUE burden in other articles. Abductive (reasoning) 22:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel Dimensions (album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatantly non-notable; I've just prodded the article on the musician responsible. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable sources that discuss this album ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability here. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non-notable --3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 17:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being non-notable is not a speedy deletion criteria. Please reread on them. A7 applies to subjects (not including albums, books, software or other creative works) that do not assert notability. talking birds 22:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NALBUMS for lack of reliable, third party sources. Does not seem to have charted. talking birds 22:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Victoria's Secret. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pink (Victoria's Secret)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable sub-brand; completely without sources, evidence or assertion of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Victoria's Secret. If there's more content and info about this brand, then yeah, it can have a separate article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Victoria's Secret, as the current article has not nearly enough context to show that the brand deserves its own article. No prejudice to recreation if the article can be expanded, well-sourced, and more information is given about the stand-alone stores. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shop.Com

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An overly promotional article for a non-notable shopping site. While the article's tone could be fixed, the lack of notability probably can't. While being an "Official Honoree" for a Webby sounds impressive initially, it looses a bit of meaning once one realizes that 15% of the sites submitted got that title. There are also a few other awards mentioned, but they seem to have similar notability issues. Further, there really isn't any reliable reporting on the site (once press release and such are tossed out). Bfigura ^(talk) 20:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, for the reasons above. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's arguments. Yworo (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 00:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It has not a single citation to any reliable sources - in fact, several citations are press releases. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page was recently blanked and written over with the following message by User:Ysimone. I actually used this entry to see if shop.com was a trustworthy site to shop from when needed to get baby stuff on discount while I was pregnant. In this economy everyone’s using sites like shop.com and shopping.com and to save money. I think it’s a good idea to keep this wiki entry because it’s a great resource for shoppers who want to check out a company that we’ve never heard of before and see if it’s legit. I restored the discussion but don't want to remove the new user's message. Them From Space 23:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Society

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable award, given within a single company (3M). Tckma (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom, also a little spammy. ukexpat (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I'd say more than a little spammy. The entire article is one giant ad for 3M. -- Atama頭 22:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —- Atama頭 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —- Atama頭 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an internal "employee of the year" award - corporate cruft with no notability - so delete. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per reasons already cited and WP:NOT#IINFO. Smartse (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aunjenelle Weaver

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete vanity This should not require existence for the length of seven days. This is an obvious delete as it exists. Miami33139 (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 21:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium Flowers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company. - Just because it is the claimed to be the largest florist in an area is not notable on its own. Failed to find anything reliable 3rd party on google. noq (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being the largest florist in Snohomish County isn't grounds for notability. Wikipedia isn't the white pages. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has been speedied before, as I recall. The largest in Snohomish County, with two branches? If I can get hold of my cousin in Snohomish, I'll see what they say. (Not guaranteeing anything - could be anywhere between New York and Korea.) My SD was declined this time on the grounds of 'largest'. Perhaps this will lay the article to rest. Apart from non-notable, has a distinct taste of spam for me. Peridon (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your speedy was declined because it does not meet speedy criteria. The subject is probably not notable; but they made a claim to notability in the article, and that makes A7 in applicable. I can only delete under A7 if I completely ignore policy. Please read the speedy criteria more carefully. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 09:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the criteria - and note the current version of the SD tag contains the word 'credibly' which I do not see fitting here. Also, I said 'before' referring to a version of the article deleted prior to the appearance of the current one. Peridon (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Astute Recorder

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this webzine is notable. Much of the information provided is about the topics in the webzine or cursory mentions about the contributors, but none of it is information about the webzine that is sourced from reliable sources (i.e., none of the provided "references" are actually references). Article is also apparent WP:COI and possible WP:SPAM from a WP:SPA. I previously speedied the substub version of this article as A7 (with a hint of G11), but the author recreated it and I figured consensus should be established. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - blatantly promotional; non-notable website spam by s.p.a. with a spamusername. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No evidence of notability. Triplestop x3 20:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSCL Instructional Design and Tools

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's an essay, not an article, and freely admits itself as such on its talk page, which states: "This entry was created by a team of graduate students in the 2007 Computer Supported Collaborative Learning course of University of Texas at Austin. It's primary purpose is to educate others on important developments in the field of online education. We welcome any support and suggestions on this content." Looks like it was really intended to explore the use of wiki software, but landed here. Was essay tagged in August 2008, and orphan tagged in February 2009, but no real further action. Article creator has made one other edit since finishing this one (to link to this article in Computer-supported_collaborative_learning, and nothing since. It looks to me like it was well-intended, but never really meant to be here Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd say to userfy it as an essay, but the users aren't around anymore. We have rules on School Projects, and that's what this looks like, but again - it's not an active project, so there's no one to pester about it. So, delete it is. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lean assessment

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term "lean assessment" exists, though as far as I can see only as a marketing slogan. Notability is therefore an issue, and no reliable sources demonstrating that are provided. Propose deletion or, possibly, merging into some appropriate article dealing with more general aspects of "lean". Favonian (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, article reads like advertising. Lean is a buzzword for management currently. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per reason given by Favonian, and also on the basis that it is pure original research. Would be better in Wiktionary I think, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Equal parts spam, OR, and garbage, without redeeming virtues. Ray^Talk 02:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in Jericho (TV series)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is mainly original research and trivia. Anything relevant to the series can be covered within the episode list. TTN (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like a proper spinout article that would overwhelm either the immediate parent article on the TV series or the episode list. Miami33139 (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think AfDs should be used to enforce redirects. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Combination articles are the proper way to go for these, trying to remove them does not help reach compromise solutions. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is fancruft and trivia pure and simple. Eusebeus (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excessively detailed plot summary and fancruft. No indication the locations in this series have received direct significant coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as proper WP:SPINOUT of plot elements that would overwhelm the parent article. Not OR as the series itself is the source and is verifiable by anyone. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doctorfluffy. Rray (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent well sourced sidebar article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well sourced? I see a fan wiki and a dead link. Can you clarify? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: are you counting the list of episode tidbits in the body as sourcing? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once again I must disagree with DGG, we should not be in the business of hosting excessively detailed plot summary and fancruft such as this. JBsupreme (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research / compilation. No evidence this issue covered in independent sources. Mukadderat (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Rudd

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was proposed for deletion, with the reason "nominated candidate in an election that hasn't been called yet; per WP:POLITICIAN electoral candidates aren't inherently notable until they win." I agree with the reason (the only significant third-party coverage I can find is news reports announcing that Rudd would be the candidate), however as PROD has previously been contested on this article[19] I've nominated it at AFD. snigbrook (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "saved our community" is a hallmark of a press release, not an encyclopedia article about a notable person. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seemingly non-notable politician where someone seems to have posted a political ad.--Buridan (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability criteria. Jim Carmel (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Booze Bait

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nom for IP editor: rationale from talk page:- PROD removed by creator (with absolutely no improvements), but the reasons are the same - it doesn't meet the criteria for notability or reliable sources. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC) - No opinion myself. ascidian | talk-to-me 17:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability and most assuredly is not. Miami33139 (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable product. Giant Snowman 11:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - found this, [20], but it looks like a press release. "Booze Bait is notable as it is the first commercially available top water tackle to specifically employ a contiguous "wine cork & bottle cap" design." I love that line. (a) people could be sticking together wine corks and bottle caps all the time, but just not "commercially"; (b) the use of "contiguous" instead of "glued together, (c) fish don't eat cork and beer caps very readily. --Milowent (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 House of Hohenzollern. Obviously the specifics of the merge can be worked out later. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretenders to the German throne

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not have additional value to seperate it from pretender. Pevernagie (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also the article contained and still contains numerous factual errors, king Albert II of Belgium is not a German pretender, and the title of the article makes it appear as if the heads of the different German houses are all pretender to the German throne, whereas in reality they are not all claiming the German imperial throne, but the throne of one of the many kingdoms and duchies that were part of the German Empire. Pevernagie (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to House of Hohenzollern where the post-1918 pretenders are listed and linked. As indicated by Pevernagie, the non-Hohenzollern claimants are pretenders to the thrones of other German-speaking territories, not to the German imperial throne. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the living so called pretenders claims actually (or did claim) any throne in Germany. It is more like a "List of people who may claim a German thron, if they wish to". --jergen (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to House of Hohenzollern or Kaiser - this list is not essential. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pretender#Germany, If anybody want some images, add them there. Sebastian scha. (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Snake gang

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no real indication that this gang is in any way noteworthy or historically significant. It appears that they were mentioned in connection with a single murder, the ones that the two news stories used as sources were about (though both links are dead now). The only other source is a personal web page, and a search of news sources turns up little actual coverage of the gang. Dominic·t 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Dominic·t 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Although this article has been toned down by various wikipedia editors, the original draft makes it pretty clear that the intention of the article was to big up this gang as feared and dangerous. Both the links to the murders committed are broken, but I certainly don't think we should be "crediting" them to the same gang unless the link has been covered in verifiable sources. With zero hits in GNews, they're non-notable and I don't see why we should pander to this kind of attention-seeking. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As AFD regulars will know, while I certainly agree that the major gangs like the Crips are significant, I have no patience for the Ghetto Boys-style use of Wikipedia as a self-promotional tool for every self-proclaimed street gang. – iride scent 18:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Coldheart

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. The only claim of notability is the "critical acclaim" of a book by the author ... but unable to find any sources that mention the book, and no reliable sources that mention the author. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page has already been deleted twice; Google has never heard of him. HalfShadow (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4 (repost). So tagged. Thanks for catching that, HalfShadow! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the speedy tag as both previous deletions were by speedy deletion, neither went through AFD so the article is not eligable for G4 deletion. Davewild (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, Dave. My bad. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One problem may be that the book is in Italian. The title in Italian is "Tutti i nani nascono a venezia" which translates to "All dwarfs are born in Venice". Some more digging may be in order before deciding on notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rankers Point Coaching Institute Indore

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement of Privately held Coaching Class, No proper Citations & references being given, Promotion of Institute is there, Not following wikipedias Policy Abu Torsam 17:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CORP B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, literally, it is rubbish and is an advertisement. --Srin ivas 08:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CORP. Advert. Pmlineditor^Talk 06:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - I have provided proper citations and tags.and this is top result of Search Engine.please i beg you.thanks. - Wikindia24x7

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G7 by Orangemike. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAUX

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM ttonyb (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - de-facto advertisement for an indie film currently in production (maybe). Obviously fails tests of notability, verifiability, and the ol' WP:CRYSTAL test. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm the author of this article...I work for the director, and I now see that this doesn't meet your criteria. Sorry to clog you guys up! I'll try again when it's had a release!Kafkacafe (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue - redirects are discussed at WP:RfD. I'll let nom know. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Shitting

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page exists solely as a redirect to Curt Schilling. The page apparently was created as a backhanded insult to Curt Schilling Hardnfast (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. NAC. Tim Song (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Thayer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this person is notable. He has a red link in another article. The BBC mentions that he is one of the Far East's "greatest names in reporting" (see article). Yet 99.9% of people never heard of him and, until today, did not have an article while obscure video games and porn stars have articles. So I don't know what to do and am submitting this article for discussion on whether to delete or not. Sorry if I am doing this wrong or if there is some formatting error in submission. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is clearly an important person, it's just that the article is horribly written. Someone will get on that eventually, i'm sure. I'm added a bunch of sources, some of which are entirely about him, from major newspapers and stations, achieving notability easily. I'm not sure if there's much else to say. Silver seren^C 16:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Silver screen. Poor writing of an article doesn't mean that the subject is non-notable. Sufficient number of Google hits. Pmlineditor^Talk 16:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closure of AFD requested and keep. I started this AFD. We now have independent confirmation on notability, at first I wasn't sure. I plan to fix this article more. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Taught Me

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was previously nominated for AFD under a different name, the Keep vote arguments were largely made without any basis in Wikipedia policy and the closing admin used the AFD summary to get on a soapbox to make his own speech. The basic thrust of things is that this incident does not have the level of multiple, independent, reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage to demonstrate a reason for its own articles. There are two stories from one local paper, a local news station, and the Washington Post. Local coverage-only sources do not meet our requirements for non-trivial coverage or else we could have Wikipedia articles on pretty much any local news story ever. The Washington Post article seems only to be repeating shallow information taken straight from the local coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There should be a link to the previous AFD. Edison (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Joe Blythe. *** Crotalus *** 15:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Attrocious incident but not appropriate for wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a repository of true crime stories. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is an old video of a martial arts student beating up a man. Some saw it on Youtube years later and were outraged. The one newspaper story attached as a reference says the injured man was a vagrant who was later seen limping around the area. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube cat abuse incident — an AFD on an article I created back in February of this year. That incident, also involving a YouTube video of atrocious conduct, made international headlines, but the article was deleted on the grounds of WP:NOTNEWS. I see no reason why this case would be any different — there isn't even as much coverage of this as there was of the cat abuse incident. A case could also be made that this article fails the notability criteria for films. *** Crotalus *** 15:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: why renominate 10 days after the AfD was closed? Tim Song (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There's really nothing in this AfD that hasn't already been covered in the previous AfD. Consensus has already been established to keep this article. Nominating it again for deletion so soon is an abuse of the Wikipedia process. -- noosph e re 18:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I was primarily concerned about the significant WP:BLP issues when I nominated it the first time. I'm still not really sure it's a worthwhile article, but I'll lean a little towards keep for this nomination and see if it can improve with a little more time. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please describe what sources you anticipate using for this article, and what reason you have to believe that it meets the notability guidelines? *** Crotalus *** 19:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google news appears to be down, or I'd grab links. Mainly the Washington Post article and the ones out of Virginia (NoVa) would be barely enough for a basic article for now (the KMPH one from Hanford/Fresno one is useless, though). It's probable that the 15 minutes of fame for this thing are up, in which case it might eventually need to be deleted, but I no longer see the need for immediate action. I would also support a Merge with Internet vigilantism, cutting out most of the article and making a short reference to the incident. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A short mention in Internet vigilantism might be justified if decent news sources can be located. (My brief Google search came up mostly with blogs and other such unreliable mentions.) That's what ultimately happened to YouTube cat abuse incident which is now a sectional redirect to Internet vigilantism. *** Crotalus *** 20:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Also, there are potential WP:BLP1E issues here that are worth avoiding. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In this case, user:Crotalus horridus has it right on. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let it be for a while.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.180 (talk • contribs) — 79.118.182.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- OK, why? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is big news in the on line martial arts communittee and is part of a Bullshido.net investigation (link - ^[1] ) and renweal of interest by the police. As for verifiable source material the video is pretty self explainatory. So regaurdless of the outcome tha issue is something that people will try to get information about. Isnt that what Wikipedia is about? Pendodecahedron (who is having code issues with this page <Grrrr>)

Oh for christ's sake not Bullshido again. I have had it up to here with those people and their spamming of non-notable, non-verifiable crap. The link you posted is to a FORUM THREAD which is clearly not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. *** Crotalus *** 16:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your infomation I am not a Bullshido regular. Just in ths case they have done alot of investigative work into something that is of concern to the martial arts communittee at large. The reason I added the link as an 'external link' and NOT referenced it in the article is because I feel it is relavant additional material that concerned martial artists would benefit from knowing. I can inderstand weariness brought about by Bullshido's rather in your face attitude though but just like a stopped clock sometimes they are right. Wikipedia is a gateway to information is it not? Pendodecahedron September 25 2009

Keep - DreamGuy, the initiator of this AFD, makes two arguments for the deletion of this article. I will address them in turn below. DreamGuy's first argument: "The basic thrust of things is that this incident does not have the level of multiple, independent, reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage to demonstrate a reason for its own articles. There are two stories from one local paper, a local news station, and the Washington Post." The fact that this is in the Washington Post should be enough (as it's a highly respected, reliable source that fully meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria). However, though the Wikipedia article only mentions a couple of other sources, there are many more sources that have written about this story: 1 - KMPH (local, Virginia TV station), 2 - Examiner (New York news website), 3 - France24 (international news website), 4 - WUSA9 (local, Virginia TV station), 5 - Washington Post (national paper), 6 - NBC Washington (Washington news website), 7 - Hanford Sentinel (California paper), 8 - Inside NOVA (local, Virginia news site), 9 - NBCi4 (national news website). So, as you can see, there are many news outlets who have covered this story. These sources should be added to the Wikipdia article, and the article should be improved, not deleted. Now, on to DreamGuy's second argument: "The Washington Post article seems only to be repeating shallow information taken straight from the local coverage." This (if it was true, and it's not -- see below) is completely irrelevant to Wikipdia policies. Wikipedia policies say nothing about whether a reliable source is simply quoting local sources. So this argument of DreamGuy's is completely irrelevant to this AfD. However, his statement of fact in that argument is also false. The major new contribution by the Washington Post article is that their reporter interviewed Dumfries and Prince William County police officers, and reported their statements. But, again, whether this was new information or not is irrelevant to the Wikipedia policies and the AfD. In conclusion, I'd just like to say that this article should be kept as this is an important event with significant, ongoing, national news coverage. Also, the reliable sources criteria has been met with virtually all of the sources. That is more than enough to keep this article. People who have their panties up in a bunch over this article should really go and use their time more productively on the thousands of Wikipedia articles which are completely or largely unsourced. -- noosph e re 18:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't seen any significant news story on this thing that wasn't local. The Washington Post article was only in the Virginia Metro section of the website, if you look closely. It was not national coverage. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 14:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - On the basis that this isn't a local coverage only story. Noosphere seems to have provided sufficient references. Blowfish (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This account is very suspicious. Blowfish has not been on WP in months, then suddenly shows up, changes one word in another article, then votes on two Bullshido-related AfD's? It's very obvious that there is either off-site canvassing or sockpuppetry going on here. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User seems to have a history of not using wikipedia for a period of months at a time, so you may be jumping to conclusions. Can you show a history of this user acting in the manner of a sockpuppet? If not you should retract your statement. As for off-site canvassing, I think that's going to be a unavoidable issue in this instance given the wide coverage of the issue at this point. We can however hope that it will bring new users at wikipedia. --Mista-X (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not a sock puppet. I mostly read here, and edit occasionally. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure that I ever voted before yesterday. Blowfish (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage is not enough to make it much more than a news story. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
KEEP - Issue was solved in previous AFD already. --Mista-X (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has adequate sources. It's generally considered very poor form to nominate an article less than a month after a previous AFD, WP:DRV would have been a more appropriate forum. There was no consensus to delete at the last AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No explanation was provided for such a rapid renomination; if you want to challenge the close of the previous AfD, WP:DRV is that way. Tim Song (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this was an important event that has had sufficient coverage by third party sources. also, per tim song, why was this renominated so quickly again? because someone didn't like the results of the previous keep? are we going to keep renominating every article we want deleted until it's gone? Theserialcomma (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything sourced and encyclopedic to Internet vigilantism. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that any facet of this article describes vigilantism. (Or at least, it would require a fairly broad definition of vigilantism.) As such, even if a merge were warranted, Internet vigilantism seems like the wrong target. Blowfish (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Insufficient notability beyond being an isolated news item, without any consequences, ramifications or influence. Mukadderat (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing provided by User:noosphere. Another page move may be appropriate, however, because its unclear if the sources covering the incident use the term "Jesus Taught Me." Perhaps the name of the article should be "Jesus Taught Me video", which would minimize the potential self-given name aspect of the article.--Pink Bull (talk) 19:47, 1 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. Cirt (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Productions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally unsourced, and much of it unsourceable. Gets a mention at B.U.G. Mafia; that should do. Indeed, this is mostly a history of B.U.G. Mafia from the perspective of Casa Productions (which has no independent notability), so it's also a content fork. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anon editors removing the {{prod}} tag without adding significant content makes notability seem even more unlikely. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If anything, whatever is not advertising in there can be fitted into at most a paragraph of the B.U.G. Mafia article. Dahn (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The issues in the nomination have been addressed, no need for this AfD to run anymore. Tone 18:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Red Shoes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing for notability, no references, a distinct lack of encyclopaedic style. It honestly appears like something set up/by a pub band for advertising. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 03:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - major overhaul:

Removed irrelevant and unsourced info, added lots of references, links, subheadings.
Rearranged to resemble a band article.
Added fact tags to help readers add references or later remove.
Does not look like an article for a pub band (not that it did anyway imho).
Notable due to the fact that they are signed to a major record label, with whom they've released 2 albums and 6 singles (a further 2 on an indie label), all of which have been fairly well-received in major publications, with multiple reviews and articles dating from 2006, and 3 of which have charted in the UK; have toured UK and Europe and headlined several festivals.
28 articles link to this one which would all have to be deleted too (around 100 in all but that's not relevant here).

Nothing on the talkpage/suggestions for improvements by anyone else. Would have been slightly more helpful as opposed a tag for deletion. Feudonym (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one has mentioned anything, can the deletion tag be removed? Why hasn't Jonomacdrones done this yet and whose responsibility is this anyway, can anyone do it? Feudonym (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Clearly notable. Bringing this to AFD was somewhat ridiculous. WP:BEFORE obviously wasn't followed. Let's not waste more people's time on this discussion that could be better spent improving the encyclopedia.--Michig (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Received Pronunciation, without prejudice against using the former content of the article elsewhere (i.e. merging). Skomorokh, barbarian 22:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Non-Regional Pronunciation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term "British Non-Regional Pronunciation" appears to have been used by one source briefly. It does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as it is not a widespread term in linguistics. Epa101 (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about how widespread the term is - I hear it commonly enough that people will want to look it up, and we don't help them if we boycott it. But I do agree that it shouldn't be an article. Can we make this a redirect to Received Pronunciation or similar, and accommodate this one sentence with its source there, perhaps at the bottom of the historical variation section? --Doric Loon (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be perfectly acceptable to me. Epa101 (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism that didn't catch on. Mandsford (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Doric Loon. It looks like the source does support the term, and redirects are cheap. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge/Redirect. Do something: don't care what, but get rid of the sad stub that is currently here. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Received Pronunciation. Abductive (reasoning) 22:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chatham High School. No need to dwell on such an obvious action. TerriersFan (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chatam high school

I am also nominating the following related page Chatam high school because : the article already exist at Chatham High School (Taree, New South Wales)♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 10:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the DAB page Chatham High School. Seems pretty cut-n-dried. Arakunem^Talk 16:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 22:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European University

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominate this article for deletion because of its unencyclopedic content. It was previously proposed for deletion and the result was: keep. However only seven persons voted before this decision was taken. Seven votes are not representative of the opinion of the community. Thus it is worth reopening the debate. This article was initially written for self-promotion by the European University, as a form of an advertisement for its institution (WP:PROMO). But adding the information of non-accreditation does not change the fact that this topic does not merit its own article on Wikipedia. A topic needs sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline (WP: NOTE). Merely being true or useful (even verifiable) does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Readers use Wikipedia for encyclopedic information. Wikipedia is not a free advertising space (WP:SPAM), and not even a space to debate about the quality of a company and its products or services. The action of helping student to choose the “right” education is not in line with building an encyclopedia.Clooodel (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/eNOTE: This AfD nomination was initiated by a new user, who did not follow correct procedure, and placed comments on the talk page of this page instead of here. I have attempted to place a correct version of what was intended here, but I cannot guarantee that I have done it entirely correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBWatson (talk • contribs)

Speedy keep - not only is this nomination out of process for being renominated so soon, this is a SPA created for the purpose of this nomination so it is proving hard to AGF. TerriersFan (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per TerriersFan; I'm just wondering which account to list as the puppetmaster at SPI... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, not only has a 'new user' chosen to AfD as their first edit, unusual in itself, they have also sufficient knowledge to quote policy. There is at least enough of an indication to investigate whether this is a SPA sock created to keep a controversial nomination off a user's main account. TerriersFan (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is coverage in reliable sources. An example of the ramifications of this body can be found in http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2009/09/13/evarist.html (and in two other Maltese papers). It seems to be fairly well-known in many areas. Note also that it is not the number of votes that counts, but the arguments used and the discussion in general. I didn't see the previous AfD, but seven is a reasonable number for AfD. Especially if they were unanimous. The nominator appears to be a single purpose account (so far - people do not often start a WP career with an AfD nomination...) Peridon (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't seen the above before making my SPA remark... Peridon (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for poor procedure. Nom's reasons for a second AfD are reasons for deletion review, not reopening the AfD (I checked, there doesn't seem to have been a review of the first AfD). RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since European University is not registered as a university and registered has a company, it doesn't make it exempt under WP:UNIGUIDE. It will in this case not be considered as notable and we should thus delete this article.Quick07 (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the above is the only contribution from another SPA. TerriersFan (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for procedural reasons (less than a month after the last AfD) and the substantive reasons given at the last AfD. --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePromo is not suitable on WP, in particular when info issued by institution itself. Made own bad experience for trust put in "reliable" advertisement on WP.Maaob28 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC) — Maaob28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I kind of agree with User:DGG's comments in the first discussion. Non-accreditation does not mean non-notability. Also, it's a pretty large school. However, there seems to be very little coverage in reliable sources. Private unaccredited higher education schools are not more notable than other schools of of this type (such as language schools (there is a huge number of those, most of them not notable at all.)) In the end, the only real arguments for "keep" seem to be that it's pretty large and it's higher education. This is not enough, and the article is likely to run into WP:POV problems in the future due to lack of third-party sources. Offliner (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the link in my post above - and the other Maltese papers - and see if notoriety comes in.... Peridon (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep which is what i said the first time. There's enough sourcing to verigy the content, and it's a common outcome that universities are notable. The distinction is that they award degrees, unlike language training institutes and the like. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of the users saying "delete", Offliner is the only one worth taking seriously. The other 3 (including the nomination as one) are all SPAs which have made no edits not related to this AfD, and they all use arguments which lack logic. For example Clooodel says "Wikipedia is not a free advertising space": true, but irrelevant, since nobody could read the article in its present state as an advertisement. Yes, it was originally written as an advertisement, but that is not relevant: what is relevant is the article proposed for deletion, that is to say the present article, not a past version of it. Maaob28 likewise says "Promo is not suitable on WP, in particular when info issued by institution itself", and the same response applies even more strongly, as this is the only argument advanced by Maaob28. Of course I can't be sure, but my guess is that these are all sockpuppets or possibly meatpuppets working on behalf of the "European University". I came to that conclusion before I discovered that there is a confirmed history of sockpuppets working to suppress information unfavourable to the EU and insert favourable information.
Offliner, on the other hand, does make a reasonable argument for deletion. Offliner says that there seems to be very little coverage in reliable sources. It is certainly difficult to find any, but that is partly because the sequence of words "the", "european", "university" occurs so frequently in other contexts that search hits for this institution get lost among irrelevant ones. Nevertheless with diligent searching it is possible to find a number of examples of reliable independent coverage, and some of the coverage is quite substantial enough to justify notability. For example this Malta Star article is, I think, quite significant enough, and can be supplemented by other briefer mentions in various places. Yes, I would like more, but I think there is enough coverage to justify keeping the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I'm adding to the pile-on only to create a stronger consensus, which was the nominator's issue with the last AfD. Them From Space 04:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hideks

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NEO applies here. Seems a non-notable neologism. - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 08:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing on scholar, news seems to be someones surname. Books I thought there might have been something but the results are due to OCR scanning errors. Nothing substantial on regular Google. Was not able to obtain anything from the ref provided. Might be more meaningful in a different language?Calaka (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a memory aid created by a student (or teacher) to help memorise an essay. Completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 15:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per all above. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else who has commented to date. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources for this. Joe Chill (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus leans to Deletion - but I agree that there might be an article here, with some work. So, I'm going to userfy the current text to the author's userspace - maybe something good can come of it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Housing theory

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lists many buzzwords and attempts to cite Case Studies but lacks any content. The only External Link provided links to a NY State "Out of date" page. Aramova (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Airplaneman ^talk 21:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete without prejudice, no content and patent nonsense. This article consists of a list of case studies prefaced by this remarkable text:

This article is related to:

architecture urban planning dwelling home hearth dormitory homeostasis community shelter building post-industrial age nomadic culture co-operative condo family philosophy design aesthetics CIAM Athens....

It goes on, too. The subject may be worthy of an article. This list might be worth moving to a userpage, as a list of topics to cover. But this is simply not an article yet. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now topic may be notable but article is unsalvagable as currently presented. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being a topic of general interest, Housing theory is a course offered a CCNY/CUNY's School of Architecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enniferj (talk • contribs)
In response to the move to delete, I would like to mention that this is the first article/page I have attempted to create on Wikipedia and reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_demolish_the_house_while_it%27s_still_being_built. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.74.184.76 (talk • contribs)
note: above two comments copied from the article talk page, and unsigned templates added by Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google search reveals that some universities do offer courses and lectures on housing theory (although most hits relate to a journal). The article is horribly written, but that is not a reason for deletion (WP:UGLY). The page's creator is also correct to cite WP:DEMOLISH. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article as it stands is completely devoid of any useful content. Not even the "case studies" or "references" are of any use because they don't actually identify specifics. If this were to be an article, it would require a complete rewrite. -- Whpq (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's totally unsalveagable, and I don't even know what it's talking about. There is potential for notability, but unless somebody can completely rewrite it in time, there's no reason why this might be kept, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 from the encyclopaedia and userfy to User:Mukadderat/Judea Declares War on Germany. Closing without prejudice against restoring the deleted content to an article of a different scope in future. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judea Declares War on Germany

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There don't appear to be any reliable sources here, so the article fails our verifiability policy. There's a primary source (the article itself), and a citation to an FAQ on the Nizkor Project (a self-published website). It's also suggested that this headline has been used by anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers, but of course we would not consider such people and groups to be reliable sources. No evidence that this headline has ever gained any currency outside an extreme right-wing fringe. In my opinion this article fails our general notability guideline and should therefore be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 20:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there are dozens of reliable sources at Google books and Google Scholar, so its verifiable and notable. Your claims are false. You also want to delete Nizkor Project. What is your agenda? -- Matthead Discuß 21:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BURDEN and WP:AGF. My only "agenda" is ensuring that we don't have poorly written crufty articles. I have nominated hundreds of different articles from a wide variety of different subjects for deletion. How can we write an encyclopedia article about a headline? Google hits by themselves prove nothing — you need more than a passing mention. You need reliable sources that focus specifically on the subject. *** Crotalus *** 21:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or a mirror of every headline from every newspaper in the world 66 years ago. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, and apparently fails notability. Edison (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS if this was a notable source of Nazi propaganda perhaps it could be mentioned as an example under Nazi propaganda. Simonm223 (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above.--Jacurek (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd discussion. The article isn't treating this headline as news, and it's not a precedent for articles about lots of other headlines. This headline, very unusually, took on a life of its own as a notable anti-Semitic canard. (Numerous GBooks and GScholar hits demonstrate that.) I can't think of any other headline with as much notability independent of the event it describes. All that being said, it would be appropriate to Merge this to Anti-Nazi Boycott of 1933.--Chris Johnson (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article about a notable event (Judenboykott) mentioned in the article, but not described in wikipedia, it seems. It has sufficient google books hits. Mukadderat (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A request to closing admin: if nobody directly related to the page follows my advice, and if you decide to delete the page, please userfy it for me. I will do this in my spare time. Mukadderat (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Judenboykott was the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses. This headline refers to the Anti-Nazi Boycott of 1933. That's the appropriate merge target.--Chris Johnson (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Being "useful" isn't necessarily a good argument, and claims that the subject matter is notable need to be substantiated by sufficient evidence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Premier League 2008-09 Fixtures & Results

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Libyan Premier League 2008-09 Fixtures & Results

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Excessive detail per WP:NOTSTATS. All details should be within Libyan Premier League 2008–09. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant info as per nom. Giant Snowman 19:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is already a table showing all the results for the season: Libyan Premier League 2008–09#Results, so there is nothing to merge. This is just excessive detail. Quantpole (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quantpole Spiderone 08:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a useful page for a notable African league Eldumpo (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is already covered well enough in the main article for that season's Libyan Premier League and what makes this more notable than the Namibia Premier League or the Sudan Premier League? None of them are professional. Spiderone 12:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 08:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessive statistical detail which is summarized at the parent article already. Jogurney (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ORBIT Systems

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:CORP. Possible WP:COI issues, the originator of the has the same name as a company that ORBIT Systems owns, Voyageurit. If kept needs to be rewritten to sound less like an advertisement. CSD tags have been removed from the article twice. Click23 (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was being completely open, using another ID to hide the affiliation would have been unethical. When deciding on the proposed affiliation we needed to evaluate the business opportunity implications of IT outsourcing in the small to midsized business market. I tried to write my article using this mindset which is a valid issue in the small business community which a large part of the economy. I will edit the article to make it less ORBIT specific but the issue at hand is still relevant and Wiki worthy. Voyageurit (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, repeatedly re-created article about a non-consumer business with no showing of minimal importance and blatant advertising to boot: As the business climate continues to evolve and technology advancements continue, outsourcing of technology services will develop.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per Smerdis above. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Article edited to demonstrate challenges facing the technology outsourcing industry. Voyageurit (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a trace of notability. Mukadderat (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Nom withdrawn, please see below. StarM 02:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsgate tugboats

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poor context to even identify the article's subject. Burningview ✉ 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds like a WP:SOFIXIT, not deletion. Whilst the current article is poor (poor context, poor intro, no refs) I assume from the creator's GF that Ramsgate did have some notable stable of tugs based there and subject to the usual need for sourcing, there's no reason why this article needs to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Ramsgate tug, which is the common name for the subject. Sources are available from Google Books. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This subject may be better covered in a wider-ranging article on the Ramsgate lifeboat. From the sources that I've looked at so far it seems that the primary use of the tugs was to assist with lifeboat rescues either by towing the lifeboat itself or by towing ships from the treacherous sandbanks in the area, such as the Goodwin Sands. Whatever happens this content should be preserved in some form. I'm sure that the people shown in the lifeboat here (the tug is off-picture to the right - you can see the rope) thought the tug was notable! I'm sure that the Ramsgate lifeboat itself is notable, covering, as it does, the most dangerous part of the world's busiest shipping lane. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. I've made a start on sourcing and expanding this article, but am reluctant to put in any more work until the threat of deletion has been lifted - I've already put in a few hours work which will come to nothing if this is deleted. I haven't yet gone beyond the narrow brief of the Ramsgate tug, but, if the nominator and the keep !voters agree, I would like to develop the article further by moving it to Ramsgate lifeboat and expanding the scope. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments I the nominator would like to withdraw my request for this article to be deleted. Burningview ✉ 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Vitus Church

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Roman Catholic parish in Cleveland, Ohio without demonstration of notability. There's substantial coverage is from the clearly reliable Encyclopedia of Cleveland History article, but not from anything else; the only other sources mentioned appear to be church-produced histories. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article claims it is the largest "Slovenian church" in the U.S., which is at least a claim to fame within the denomination, but how is "large" measures? Seating capacity? Area of footprint? Mass of structure? Interior/exterior volume? Enrolled members? Attendance? Reliable sourcing for the claim is lacking. Othersise it sounds like a fine and well functioning congregation, but probably not deserving more than mention in the article about its community. I do not see reliable and independent sources with significant coverage More would be needed than the congregation's own publications, or newspaper articles about services or personnel changes. See Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) which was an effort to set a notability standard for religious congregations and their buildings, ultimately rejected. It still represents the views of several editors about things that might make a congregation notable enough for its own article. Wikipedia is not a directory of churches. Edison (talk) 18:31, 8 September 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) 00:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I put some references up that might achieve notability. Not entirely sure though. I think there's other references out there, but you have to slog through obituaries to find them. It's a pain.Silver seren^C 16:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, although the formatting and tone need improvement. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result was Speedy Keep (NAC)- Nominator did not provide any deletion rationale (and has not in the three days the discussion has been open). Subject is a professional American football player and therefore would pass WP:ATHLETE as inclusion criteria.

Steve McLendon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comment Any rationale or for that matter have you looked at WP:AFD on how to open an AfD? Since the AfD tag isn't on the article.--Giants 27(c|s) 19:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as nom hasn't given a valid reason for deletion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect can be created if necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tianna Moore

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not assert notability and the main article already covers it. TTN (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD should not be used to enforce redirects.[21] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't being used to enforce redirects. The user disagreed with redirecting them the first time, so I placed one of the other characters up, and it was deleted. It seemed reasonable to assume that the user would then allow them to be redirected, but that isn't the case. Now this one is up for deletion as well, as it seems unlikely that discussion with a fan would produce any sort of results. TTN (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Daughters of the Moon. No evidence of independent notability. No references to third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I havent seen sources to make it a notable article by itself. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as above. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protected redirect as above. No real world significance here. Eusebeus (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect in agreement with many of the editors commenting here. Makes good sense. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Rray (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone else. (METOO) JBsupreme (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7 Tone 18:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Griffith

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy delete: completely non-notable as grandmother of rapper. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:INHERITED. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person, and no need for an article. Shark96z (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as above. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Real Madrid C.F. records and statistics. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid C.F. honours

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page should be deleted because a honours section was introduced in Real Madrid C.F. main article. This is useless. More than that, this article includes friendly trophies which i find unencyclopedic. Hadrianos1990 12:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - content already covered in Real Madrid C.F. records and statistics, so redirect there. Giant Snowman 13:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above Spiderone 14:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as above. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I'm sure a similar article was deleted not too long ago. – Pee Jay 18:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per GiantSnowman's suggestion. I'd say it's a valid search term. --Jimbo^[online] 08:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The divine symmetry

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence of notability, either in the article or elsewhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article gives no sources.

Google searches for "The Divine Symmetry" "Mohammad Mirzaee", for "The Divine Symmetry" "Amir soleyman Esfandiari", for "The Divine Symmetry" "Hasti Aroosh" and for "The Divine Symmetry" "TEHRAN SHORT MOViE" produce either no hits at all or only this Wikipedia article. It is very difficult to believe that none of these searches would come up with anything if the film were notable. I have even tried searching for "The Divine Symmetry" movie, which, of course, is so open and general that it produces loads of irrelevant hits; however, none of the hits seemed to refer to a movie with this title.

If it exists it is clearly not remotely notable in Wikipedia's sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and subsequent comment. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a hoax and the article says that the sources are "MM's Internet Magazine (6.8/10) Young Shoots (7.5/10) IGN (not rated)" which are lies. Joe Chill (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is an Iranian filmmaker named Mohammad Mirzaee [22], and he has reviewed a film for IGN [23][24]. However, sources indicate that he was born in 1991 [25], making him 17 or 18. There is no indication that this is his 8th film, and no indication that it has any notability if it exists. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The sources mention Canavan mostly in passing in the larger context of the plane crash; this is insufficient for an article. GlassCobra 22:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June Canavan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no real claim to notability here. Dying in a plane crash and climbing medium size mountains to raise money for charity don't make you notable. Grahame (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As creator of the article I hold that Dr Canavan was sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia. I respect the nominator's opinions and this is a disagreement which will need to be resolved by the community. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A kind and benevolent person no doubt, but there is no indication of notability (or even a reference) prior to her death. WWGB (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Walking and climbing don't make a person notable. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slovensk and Old Rusa

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is based on a 17C religious text. User has been warned about adding such material to the main Russia page. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no modern scholarly significance New seeker (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liliane Tiger

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage and doesn't pass the current WP:PORNBIO criteria. Epbr123 (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Evil saltine (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. She has the nominations (2 of 'em) for 2007, but that's all she has - and that doesn't reflect multiple years' worth of nominations. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rocki Roads

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Evil saltine (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuki-Zomi Ethnic Clash 1997-98

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be about an ethnic conflict that the author Vaphualization (talk · contribs) has posted in multiple places on the internet. I cannot find anything that actually supports the fact that this conflict existed or is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. It was authored by a single user (Zaphualization) who appears to be using the Internet to spread knowledge or realization of this conflict and is only mentioned in passing on various blogs ([26] [27] [28]). The article is also orphaned, only referenced in bot edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Keep - The article is obviously in need of a major rewrite, but I found several news sources ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]) and books ([35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]) referencing this conflict. (Snippet view is so frustrating.) The article as it stands has serious POV, sourcing, and OR issues, but it looks like a topic we should have an article on.--Chris Johnson (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up per Chris Johnson above. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is that if it is kept, will anyone actually bother to clean it up? I've rarely seen this happen, especially with esoteric ethnic conflicts like this one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 22:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DXBR-FM

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is some certainty as to whether or not this is a hoax (this article has been tagged as a hoax since April 1, 2009).

I have been unable to find anything to verify the existence of this radio station, so I have brought it to AfD. If it does indeed exist, I will withdraw my AfD nomination. Cunard (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a comment on the talk page in December 2008 about this being a hoax:

Talk page

Hoax Station

There is no Bay Radio in Davao! Bay Radio Stations broadcast outside Metro Manila, Cebu & Davao. This article should be deleted immediately. Underblast (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spent quite a while searching through various meta search engines but couldn't find DXBR-FM anywhere. There is a AM station with the call sign of DXBR, but not a FM station. In addition, I could not find any of the other FM radio stations listed on DXBR-FM. The two websites I found with a list of the radio stations in the Philippines are:

Those were the only two websites I could find with any considerable information.

Having said that: Delete. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, alleged radio station is not found in the official list of radio stations at the National Telecommunications Commission website. (The NTC is the Philippine equivalent of the FTC, so its website likely contains the list of existing radio and television stations in the Philippines.) I'm inclined to agree with the Talk page comment. --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus has been sufficiently established. GlassCobra 22:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rocker jacket

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is some uncertainty as to whether or not this article is a hoax (this article has been tagged as a hoax since August 25, 2009). There are some passing mentions on Google Books, but I'm not sure if this is the "rocket jacket" those books are referring to. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion on the talk page:

Discussion

Is the term "rocker jacket" a complete hoax?

This article only has two references, and neither of them uses the words "rocker jacket." For a couple months now, I've made a point of searching various dictionaries of slang and modern usage for the term "rocker jacket". I have found nothing. And as you can see in two seconds, the only time the term shows up on the web is either a) parroting this WP article or b) new fashion jackets that look nothing like the classic motorcycle jacket, black leather jacket or the Perfecto motorcycle jacket worn by Marlon Brando in The Wild One and most closely associated with the cultural claims being made in this article.

I would just want to merge this article with Perfecto motorcycle jacket or move all the content to the more common term Motorcycle jacket, but in addition, I think Rocker jacket should be deleted as a complete hoax.

I'm just throwing this out there in the hopes that somebody can show any evidence the term is in use anywhere. Maybe it isn't an English term; is it from Germany or Russia? Anyone? Bueller? --Dbratland (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax tag added

I have found some German sources that use the term "rocker gang" for outlaw motorcycle clubs, but I think this could just as easily be a reference to the shape of the 3-piece patch, not rock & roll, or the rockers of the UK. I'm still hoping there is an expert out there who can cite a source for this terminology before I nominate for deletion.--Dbratland (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this article's title is in reference to the Mods and Rockers British youth subcultures of the 1960s, but there seems little justification in calling this style of jacket a "Rocker Jacket" because of incidents almost 50 years ago, unless there is indeed evidence of recent usage. Wlindley (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone 50 years ago, or 1000 years ago, ever used the terminology "rocker jacket", that would be great. We could cite it. But nobody ever says, or did say 50 years ago, "rocker jacket." That is the hoax here. Yes, the rockers existed, and they still exist. Yes, sometimes some of them wear jackets, often motorcycle jackets, or leather jackets. The problem is that there is no particular type of jacket connected with rockers and called a "rocker jacket." It was invented by a Wiki editor.--Dbratland (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is a "Rocker Jacket". I was a Rocker in the 60s and I am still a rocker/greaser/biker wearing a rocker jacket (Schott (Brando) jacket) today. And yes I still ride as well! IBULLIONS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.205.66 (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence of anyone actually using the phrase "rocker jacket"? Books? Movies? Magazines? Anything? You just pointed out that Schott doesn't call it that.--Dbratland (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced original research and woolly speculation. A couple people swear to me they did hear this term used back in the 80s, but not for very long, and none of them ever saw it in print. I've checked a half dozen dictionaries of slang, and every resource they have at the Seattle and King County libraries. Rocker jacket is a slang term that tried, but failed, to catch on, partially because the Rocker (subculture) never settled on any one style; they wore several different kinds of jackets. The redirect page Motorcycle jacket needs to be expanded into an overview of this topic, covering the Langlitz Columbia jacket [41][42], the Perfecto motorcycle jacket, The Wild One and so on. You could argue for saving Rocker jacket because something is better than nothing, but it has been waiting for sources to come along for 6 years. It's all unsourced original research. --Dbratland (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the text comes from Leather jacket, just tweaked to use this term. Even the Perfecto motorcycle jacket article, which this article claims is the "original rocker jacket" doesn't use that term. The only question in my mind is whether to redirect or outright delete. If there's any reliable source to support Rocker Jacket as a term, then a redirect is in order... I can't find any though, in-line with Dbratland's comments, so I say Delete at this point. Arakunem^Talk 16:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regardless of the outcome of this, I am redirecting Motorcycle jacket to Motorcycle safety clothing. A motorcycle jacket is, first and foremost, protective gear for riders. Its use as a fashion article is secondary, so Motorcycle jacket should not be a redir to this article. Arakunem^Talk 17:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To answer Dbratland's statement, I have heard the term as well, being a child of the 80's. Rocker jackets were a type/style of leather jacket that were a fad of the 80's, and as such, a simple merge or redirect to leather jacket or motorcycle jacket does not do it any justice. They were no different, IMHO, than parachute pants or spiked collars. Eauhomme (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Is there enough material available to warrant its own article? Much of the current text comes from Leather jacket, which already goes into some detail about use by the rocker culture (as well as The Fonz). Perhaps a sub-section in that article devoted to the Rocker culture would be sufficient until it grows big enough to be forked out into an article? Arakunem^Talk 13:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that while the terms "parachute pants" and "spiked collar" have many sources to verify them, rocker jacket has none. If you could point out any sources, that would change everything. The fact that you heard the term is insufficient reason to keep the article; it's WP:OR. --Dbratland (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The rocker jacket article was moved from its original title leather jacket on 5 June 2006 (diff) and the old leather jacket article was pasted over the redirect (diff). If consensus is to delete, the rocker jacket article history before the 5 June copy-and-paste move should be merged to leather jacket to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons per WP:CPMV. --Muchness (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to creating a new article if adequate sources can be found. I've searched and cannot find anything substantial to verify the article's contents. The phrase "rocker jacket" is certainly in use, but I've found sources applying the term to a variety of different jacket styles, from denim jackets to blazers to leather jackets. An overview article detailing the different current and historical usages of the term may be viable if reliable sources can be found. --Muchness (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a couple of hits on Google Books, but they don't convince me. For your information, all you children of the 80s, I fathered the 80s, but I don't remember spawning the concept "rocker jacket." Drmies (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep and speedy close - clearly notable by long-standing consensus per WP:SNOW; "unfinished" is not a reason for deletion. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Hartford

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Downtown Hartford

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks assertion of notability and any substantial sources. It appears that the creator of the article intended to construct an article based on patching together information on 8 historic districts in Hartford, but has not completed that thought and is not likely to do so. The historic districts are wikipedia-notable and can and will be covered in separate articles; they do not need this as a vehicle to cover them. It is not established that "Downtown Hartford" has any legal or other specific meaning or is in actual common usage, much less that the phrase has more common usage than other possible constructions such as "Central Hartford" or "Central Business District/Downtown" as it is referred to in Neighborhoods of Hartford, Connecticut. Google search turns up hits on the phrase "Downtown Hartford" of course, but those that i reviewed speak of a "downtown area of Hartford" and otherwise do not establish that "Downtown Hartford" has important meaning and definition on its own. I would suggest merger to Hartford, Connecticut article but see no useful content to merge. Per the essay wp:LOCAL: "If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality." So if some useful material can be found, I suggest it be added at Hartford, Connecticut or at Neighborhoods of Hartford, Connecticut, instead. Per wp:SPLIT there is no need for this to be split out from the neighborhoods article, which is about 17k in size (for articles < 30 KB, "Length alone does not justify division").doncram (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no encyclopaedic value in this verbal description of a map. New seeker (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC) --Orlady (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The AfD nomination is disingenuous and totally lacking in merit. The topic is notable and extensive well-sourced information exists to build the article. The nominator's statement of the reasons for deletion boils down to "I don't like the person who split this article off from Neighborhoods of Hartford, Connecticut," which is not a valid reason for deletion. Contrary to the nominator's assertion that "Downtown Hartford" lacks "legal or other special meaning" and is not "in actual common usage", this section of the city is defined and described on an official city website[43] and a search restricted to the phrase "downtown Hartford" returns "about 113,000" ghits"downtown+hartford", of which at least the first 100 are about Downtown Hartford, Connecticut (the topic of this article). Moreover, the nominator is disingenuous in suggesting that the subject does not have sufficient coverage for an article, as the nominator apparently intends to replace this one article with at least 8 much narrower articles on subtopics, beginning with Downtown North Historic District (Hartford, Connecticut), which he split off from this article (see diff1 and diff2) after encountering opposition to his proposal to delete the redirect of that article name. --Orlady (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by disingenuous you mean the dictionary meaning "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere", I resent that remark and your repetition of it. What specifically do you mean I am insincere about. My starting this AFD has to do with a larger context of seeking to remove inappropriate redirects and inaccurate coverage of CT NRHPs (a large topic which others could get into by seeing Talk:List of RHPs in CT and its archives). The immediate prompt for me was indeed your opposition to the simple deletion of an inappropriate-in -my view redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#various_NRHP_HDs_in_CT. I explicitly gave notice to you and others there that I had started this AFD and I explained why I was proceeding to start the Downtown North HD article.

Orlady you have been specifically asked by me and others not to make remarks that are personal about me. I have repeatedly asked you not to characterise my motivations. Others have objected when I characterized some of your previous characterisations of me as being outright lies. Here, I think you dance around a little bit, but it is verging on the same. About what you specifically suggest:

That i nominated this for AFD because I dislike the person who created it, that is a false statement. I have never said that, and it is not true. Why assert that?
You say I make an "assertion that "Downtown Hartford" lacks "legal or other special meaning" and is not "in actual common usage"'. That is simply true. Read what I wrote: I said that in the article "It is not established that "Downtown Hartford" has any legal or other specific meaning or is in actual common usage" and that is or was true based on the article as written. Why mischaracterise me?
You state "the nominator apparently intends to replace this one article with at least 8 much narrower articles on subtopics". That is also a false statement, and this one I think it amounts to a lie, because you actually know differently. For me to prove to others that you know differently takes more effort than others may want us to go into here, but for a start others could see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#various_NRHP_HDs_in_CT and the 6 previous batches of CT NRHP redirects linked from there which I sought to delete, rather than create CT NRHP stub articles. Why would you lie about this? (To others, I do support any local editor who wants to take photos, get sources, and develop articles about any of the 8 historic districts mentioned, which are wikipedia-notable topics. That is different than what Orlady is asserting.)

Depending on how you define what lying is, those characterisations are either lies or very close to lies, and I think your commenting this way is inappropriate for an administrator or for any other editor. I could easily make counter-accusations about your motives, disingenuity, etc., but will refrain. (If anyone else objects to the tone of my response here, I will be willing to discuss it at my Talk page or elsewhere, and hopefully not continue in this vein here. I have at least once previously asked Orlady whether she would participate in a mediation process, and she declined. For the record I would be happy to participate in some sensible process elsewhere. However, from my previous many interactions with Orlady, I believe I have learned that I do need to respond promptly and directly to insinuations she makes, or else the discussion of content is poisoned irretrievably. Sorry about this.) About the article, I am not impressed by the development so far, and think that it remains best to leave development of information about the central business district of Hartford to a section in the Hartford neighborhoods article. doncram (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In spite of the need to avoid negative interaction with Doncram, I responded to this AfD in this manner (after mulling the situation over for several hours) because I was aghast to see it, and I could not see a way to effectively explain my concerns about it without commenting about the circumstances that surrounded it. The fact that I had expanded the article (the first time I had edited it) just ~4 hours before the AfD was started (and a couple of hours after Doncram had "invited" me[44] to engage in a one-to-one discussion elsewhere) did lead me to think that the purpose of the AfD might be to provoke me, but I could not sit by silently and ignore the AfD for that reason.

Regarding my assertion that Doncram nominated this because of dislike for the person who split it out, I based this on the wording of the nomination focused on the "creator of the article," not the notability of the article topic. (It says: "It appears that the creator of the article intended to construct an article based on patching together information on 8 historic districts in Hartford, but has not completed that thought and is not likely to do so.") Furthermore, I know that there is a history of negative interactions between Doncram and Polaron. I am very glad to hear that this AfD was not motivated by interpersonal issues.

Doncram correctly points out that his statement was "it is not established", not "it isn't true". However, for purposes of discussing the AfD, my concern was not to parse the nominator's words but to address the substance of the statement made. In this instance, the term "Downtown Hartford" has a well-defined meaning and is in common usage, which was my sole point in quoting these words.

Regarding my statement on Doncram's intent to replace this article with 8 much narrower articles, he is correct that I don't actually know what he was going to do, but I do know that he started the first of those 8 articles (using content removed from this article) when he started this AfD, and I also know that he has said he wanted that redirect (and others like it) to be deleted because he wants redlinks to exist in list articles like National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut to order to encourage someone to create individual articles. This indicates that he wants those 8 individual articles to exist, although he may not personally intend to create all of them.

My comment about disingenousness related to matters such as (1) the nom's failure to mention the goal of replacing this one article about an allegedly nonnotable topic with 8 or more individual subarticles in place of this one article and (2) the "wiki venue-shopping" involved with first trying to delete the redirect at WP:RFD, then abandoning that initiative after opposition was expressed and instead trying to delete the article that the redirect pointed to. --Orlady (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Any notability concerns are resolved with this source and the many others. The region is also clearly defined by the city; if you actually go to the Hartford website and select the neighborhood map of downtown, you'll get the official map. I agree with the nominator that there is no need to split from Neighborhoods of Hartford, Connecticut, but if we merge it back we should leave the page history and a redirect per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't have access to it now, but I noticed before that the NYT article cited refers to "downtown Hartford", not a proper nown "Downtown Hartford". The city neighborhood seems to be locally named "Downtown". I see no official or other proper noun-type mention of the place as "Downtown Hartford" in any of the references or external links which have been added now. I also notice the article editors have perhaps implicitly acknowledged that "Downtown Hartford" appears to be a wikipedia construction, having changed the bolded name in the article to just "Downtown". I think we are agreeing that this article should be merged away, but if the edit history must be preserved, I would suggest first moving the current article to "Downtown (Hartford, Connecticut)" before merging any usable content to the neighborhoods article. doncram (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

appears to be a wikipedia construction Wikipedi articles are about notable topics, not proper nouns, so if the phrase "Downtown Hartford" wasn't itself a well-understood and often used pair of words with, say 26,000 hits in Google News Archives [45], the thing itself would merit an article based on whether there was enough sourcing about it under whatever name or capitalization. Ahem: The news comes on the heels of a report issued by the city of Hartford, which said 40 percent of downtown’s half-million square feet of retail space is vacant. [46] Somebody inform the city government that "Downtown Hartford" is only a Wikipedia construction. Then they wouldn't be wasting government dollars writing reports about it. Tell the New York Times, too, because they wouldn't have to write so many articles focusing -- entirely -- on what's going on in Downtown Hartford: Scroll down the archives search I linked to for NY Times articles on Jan 5, 1976 (A Big Shopping Mall and Lots of People Mark Downtown Hartford's Resurgence); (Keeping Downtown Hartford Alive) on Aug 15, 1993; (Downtown Hartford's Future May Be in New Hotel Rooms) Jun 16, 2004; (Downtown Hartford Sturs from Slumber [...]) on Jan 4, 2006; (Reviving Ailing Retail In Downtown Hartford) on June 9, 1993; or the Hartford Courant (8OO Luncheon Guests Get View Of Downtown Hartford In 1980) on Jan 29, 1959. I'd go on, but didn't I already pass notability for this subject already? JohnWBarber (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course Notability refers to the notability of the topic (see WP:N, first sentence -- how elementary does it get?), not the extent to which that notability is reflected in the wording and references of the actual article, so when we discuss a "lack of an assertion of notability" it's with the assumption that an assertion can't actually be made. The idea that Downtown Hartford (or even "downtown Hartford") is not notable defies common sense, sourcing and our notability guidelines. Sourcing: Easily available (Google Books -- plenty of in-depth treatments [47], Google News Archives -- also plenty of in-depth treatment and details galore in many, many articles [48]); Common Sense: When walking to work from his home just outside the downtown [49], the major American poet Wallace Stevens walked through part of Downtown Hartford every working day to one of the many large companies that are still headquartered there (getting ideas for his poems as he walked), and when they call Hartford the "Insurance Capital of America", they aren't referring to its suburbs but to the downtown itself. It is where Connecticut was founded, where much of Connecticut's history took place and where America's oldest museum, its oldest public park and the Hartford area's most prestigious music and theater venues are located. Any downtown is a concentration of a city's important economic and cultural institutions, and if there are enough of either, you'll get plenty of sourcing and therefore notability and information for a Wikipedia article that couldn't fit into an article about the city itself. How much more notable does a subject need to be before we no longer have any doubt that the topic is worth an article? And as for the assertion of notability, the article as I read it now indicates very clearly why the topic is important. Just read the lead. It needs an improvement tag, not deletion. The subject could even contain its own good-sized category, except for the fact that every article in it would be important enough to be worth keeping in Category:Hartford, Connecticut. And another thing: Google search turns up hits on the phrase "Downtown Hartford" of course, but those that i reviewed speak of a "downtown area of Hartford" and otherwise do not establish that "Downtown Hartford" has important meaning and definition on its own. Doncram, the names that sources use for this topic is irrelevant. What's relevant is that many sources address this topic in detail. The evidence is overwhelming. And if this is deleted, isn't it obvious that someone will just start it again (so shouldn't we save them the trouble of adding back the categories and pictures and links?). Please withdraw the nomination and stop draining the time of editors who have better things to work on. For one thing, we could work on improving this article, but the subject is so large and complex, with so much information to digest and incorporate, that I'm sure more than one editor has found the idea daunting. JohnWBarber (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep the article and speedy close this nomination as being a bad-faith nomination. There has been a long-standing conflict between Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) in regard to the names of historic districts and whether the articles about the historic districts should be separate articles versus made redirects to the articles about the towns they're in. This AFD nomination is just another manifestation of that dispute. There's also a long-standing conflict between Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Orlady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on a number of topics. All this bickering and sniping between parties is taking away from the actual work of writing articles. It's highly disruptive, and it gives the project (Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places) a black eye. These conflicts need to stop NOW. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot much

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism. Disputed PROD. No sources provided that show term is in widespread use or has cultural impact beyond Timaru. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This term is more appropriate for urbandictionary.com. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced term.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 15:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:WPINAD. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP.-gadfium 19:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lot. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete much - speediably A7. No indication that this has spread beyond one person in Timaru. It's certainly not widely used in New Zealand, as the author claims. FWIW, this phrase is very difficult to google, but for NZ sites there was only one relevant ghit, on a blog for fans of a tv show. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW the article originally said that the phrase was invented by "Evan Curry" - the author of this article also wrote an article on said person, which was speedied A7 (and also borderline G10). Grutness...wha? 00:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hot much is a common word and should be allowed to stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by B-radical13 (talk • contribs)
- — B-radical13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hot mulch, maybe, but hot much? delete. dramatic (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently fails WP:N, and only serious and prolonged work by a linguist could potentially bring it to that standard. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Miller (murderer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 06:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable New seeker (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO. See also WP:NOTNEWS. A one off murder is not something that needs to be in encyclopedias forever, if it led to no societal changes, no new laws, and no secondary coverage such as books, plays, or movies. Wikipedia is not a crime blog. Edison (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as BLP1E. The bit about him being suspected in 28 other assaults may in future qualify him for an article, if it turns out he has more murder victims as well. If that time ever comes, then I've got no problem with this being re-created. Arakunem^Talk 17:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete not enough notable. Rirunmot (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook case of WP:ONEVENT. - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 23:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:ONEEVENT for his original murder conviction. His recent media resurrection (for want of a better word) is nothing but a passing mention about him and 50 other criminals, not significant enough to warrant his own article. Giant Snowman 14:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No special notability. Tfz 15:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Miriam Sakewitz

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miriam Sakewitz Placed in subpage due to length of discussion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW Tone 18:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron L. Nelson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax autobiographical article about a non-notable person... zero G-hits or G-news hits in regard to this particular Aaron L. Nelson... Adolphus79 (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I speedied this as a hoax originally because one would stand to reason that someone who has played in the ABA or was a notable college athlete would have some references about him. As such it utterly violates WP:V and is clearly an autobiographical puff piece. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Kinu ^t/_c 06:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any evidence that this guy exists. Even if he does, those claims to notability are pretty weak. That Chicago team has never received a single mention (outside of ads) in either the Chicago Sun-Times or Chicago Tribune! Zagalejo^^^ 06:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this doesn't appear to be a total hoax; someone named Aaron Nelson did indeed play in the IBL: [50]. Still, I don't see how this article satisfies any of the notability criteria. Zagalejo^^^ 07:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Worst possible kind of vanispamcruftisement. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and you might want to see the article talk page for the author's response to this deletion suggestion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non notable vanity. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Already speedied once. Hairhorn (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When the best refs the author can cite are twitter, facebook and myspace, one cannot help but wonder...I think the snow's falling already. Tim Song (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mariannette Miller-Meeks

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see two possible reasons for notability per WP guidelines here: the failed run at political office (usually not good enough for us) and her position as "the first woman president of the Iowa Medical Society." Of course there is some coverage on her political run, but nothing major; on the second part, I find no independent coverage of her attaining that position and cannot, therefore, conclude that it confers notability on the subject, automatic or otherwise. The article is pretty bloated with plenty of puffery and peacock terms. and seems edited with some COI issues. On the whole it is insufficiently sourced to even establish some basic facts (as another editor noted here and what references and mentions there are do not, in my opinion, establish notability. I would like the community to decide and what appears to me to be a resume. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 04:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 05:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 05:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At first, thanks for informing me personally. I tried to wikify this article, but it surely needs more work. As I stated on its talk page, IMHO the the first woman in a position of a state-wide organisation of Iowa (<irony>If Riga is only a small community, is Iowa really bigger?</irony>) is notable. Nevertheless I need to confess: while changing the external inline links into refs, I only searched if Miller-Meeks is mentioned in them, not what the sources state. The politician part don't interest me at all, and I don't know if she is notable as the loosing person (although she is wikilinked from a election article). There are only 3 or 4 papers mentioned on google scholar search (is this important/notable?). All in all I'm not really sure if she need a article, but it was there, so I tried to help a bit. Greetings and happy editing. Sebastian scha. (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sebastian. As you can see from the history, I tried doing that myself, but after working on it a while, and browsing around for references, I didn't see the notability required for a WP article. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:POLITICIAN. The Iowa Medical Society appointment is not enough to meet WP:PROF criterion #6. A search on HPoP using “MJ Miller-Meeks” turns up 15 papers, with 109 citations, and an h-index of 4. Most widely cited paper has 39 citations. As for the political angle, the GNews coverage is sizeable, but: “Just being […] an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability …” (from WP:POLITICIAN).--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not yet appear to achieve notability for work on opthalmology. Neither does political activity. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even allowing for due caution, this seems to be an appropriate case for WP:SNOW. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Druid (Dungeons & Dragons)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Druid (Dungeons & Dragons)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be fake and not notable. Appears only have in world context and sources are not WP:RS compliant Testmasterflex (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Fake"? You mean, it really didn't appear in all those books mentioned in the Publication history section running back through the entire history of the game? "Not notable" is questionable as well, as there are a few independent sources cited and likely more exist. "Only in world context" - did you not notice the publication history section? It ain't perfect, but it's far from unfixable. BOZ (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not sure I follow the nominator's points, but this D&D character class is well known, appears in several editions of the game and in other works about it. Goochelaar (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Sources exist.[51][52][53][54] A nice little sourced article can be created, it will take a lexisnexis account and physically reading a bunch of 25 year old magazine to get there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A major character class in four editions of the game.SPNic (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't it cut from one edition and returned in the next? Abductive (reasoning) 21:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussions above. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable D&D character class. Simonm223 (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator should be made aware that there is a big difference between a playable character class and a run-of-the-mill monster in D&D. Abductive (reasoning) 21:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly could use some cleanup, better sourcing, etc., but this isn't like an individual D&D monster. This class has been in most (all?) editions of the game, usually in the core rulebooks, and it is an essential part of D&D's history. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure what's supposed to be "fake" about this; as an established element in the D&D game, it surely exists, and the sources document it. In a philosophical sense, game rules are in fact supremely reliable, more reliable than the best accepted findings of history or science. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rarae Avis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article from 2006 about a band that released one album in 2003, on a now-defunct independent label, and which played some local shows. They don't appear to have done anything since then. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and add Brandon Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Equazcion (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Bergen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a composer/producer who is prolific but has never achieved any major awards. Appears to fail WP:BLP, and was created and mainly edited by User:Norman517 whose edits (all except one) are about this person or their song "Only A Fool Breaks His Own Heart" leading me to believe that this is mainly autobiographical. Frmatt (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have known Mr. Bergen for years. He is an accomplished musician, musical director, composer,arranger, record producer just to name a few. Mr. Bergen has at least 3 gold albums and two platinum albums to his credits. Mr. Bergen has had great success in Europe with his music. Some of his compositions continue to be re-recorded and re-mixed in Europe and other places. Please let me know of any other changes that need to be made to this page to avoid deletion. ilonao51 (talk) 21 September 2009

Not one hundred percent sure that the user above is a sock, but have reason to believe it. Please see the report I filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Norman517. Frmatt (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can guarantee you that I am not a sock. I had to look that up was not sure what that meant. Feel free to email me any time and I will prove to you that I am not Norman517. First I am female. I am the assistant to Mr. Bergen. I took it upon myself to add all the citations that was requested for this page. I am still not done but I do have citations for almost all of the people mentioned. I tried to open the investigations link but it wouldn't open for me. Feel free to contact me at ilonao51@hotmail.com with any questions you might have. Mr. Bergen can be contacted through his website at www.normanbergen.com if you would like to ask any questions of him. I find this a little much to have to take time from my work to do all this. I do understand that there needs to be verification. I should have the verification completed within the week. ilonao51 (talk) 19:08 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment, Request to withdraw AFD - If at all possible, I would like to withdraw this AFD as I have reviewed the information that the above user has submitted and intend to work with her to resolve all COI issues, and to evaluate whether this article can meet WP standards. I would invite any interested user to join us! Frmatt (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mail truck

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Gallery of mail trucks, no sources. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Interesting to see the different types of Mail Trucks in the world. Maybe clean up the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.238.238 (talk • contribs) 2009-09-22 05:10:04
- LEGO calls it a mail van. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been tempted to say delete: in its current state the article is almost non-existent, and the gallery should definitely go to Commons. However the mail truck is by far and large a notable subject. Since AfD is not cleanup, we can move the gallery and see what can be done to have a decent article on the subject. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard has added a fair amount of referenced material. Not comprehensive by any means, but it does reinforce Cyclopia's comments and shows that there is much room for this to grow. And as an aside, its only a couple hundred characters from qualifying for WP:DYK as a 5x expansion! Arakunem^Talk 16:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Liking the sources I see. MBisanz ^talk 17:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Up until March this was a unsourced but not terrible stub.[55] Vandalism or ineptitude by an IP editor reduced it to a fragment. Sadly this wasn't reverted, but was instead very roughly built on by an editor who then added the gallery.[56] The lesson? Check the history of terrible articles, they might have once been better. Also instead of deleting this kind of article, a spell in the Wikipedia:Article Incubator could do them some good. That's not needed now as JdBP has improved it enough for it to stand alone already. Fences&Windows 18:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - improved enough to keep. DustyRain (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate; that is move to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Simbo Olorunfemi with no prejudice to reversing the move at a later date should the article be sufficiently developed. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simbo Olorunfemi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

is a completely unreferenced vanity article containing wild unverified bogus claims Laestrygonian3 (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or ~~Speedy userfy~~ WP:INCUBATOR - As the article is not backed up with references to reliable sources the claimed WP:N can't be verified. WP:BURDEN is on the editors adding or restoring material and with that in mind I've challenged all claims to notability, deleted them from the mainspace article, and left a message with the editor about userfying until a version can be developed with citations. I suggested the userfy as the editor that credited this only has one edit (the one that created the article) meaning it'll likely take him or her a while to get up to speed on reliable sources, etc. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I put in some more time on this to see if I could establish notability. While I'm tempted to strike WP:INCUBATOR I'll leave it to the INCUBATOR folks to decide if they want to continue with this project. The potentially WP:AUTHOR qualifying points are:

Won the Association of Nigerian Authors (ANA) Cadbury poetry prize in 2004 and short-listed for the 1993 ANA poetry prize. I was unable to locate reliable source mention of these nor did I find evidence that they are major or notable prizes.
Rhythm of the Coins received critical acclaim worldwide. Unable to find any evidence of critical acclaim.
Per Worldcat two of his poetry collections are in several university libraries. This seems to meet WP:AUTHOR point 4 "had works in many significant libraries."

Summary - I believe if anyone interested is in continuing this project that they will need to talk with the author to dig up reliable sources. Given the level of detail included when the article was created it's likely the editor who did this is the author or someone related. Another possible way to contact him is that his e-mail address in 2007 is on the travelmole.com site (see notes above for the full URL). --Marc Kupper|talk 23:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If userfying is being considered, as was suggested above by User:Marc Kupper, I submit that it might be better to move this article to WP:INCUBATOR, a new project that is essentially the same as the userfy option, except it's in a central area, in the project namespace. The advantages of incubation over userfication are that more eyes will see the article, and that it won't sit there indefinitely out of sight if no improvement occurs.
Thanks for your consideration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INCUBATOR seems like a good place as the user that created the article seems to be gone. It looks like this one could turn into a minor constellation of articles

Association of Nigerian Authors - stub
The ANA/NDDC Drama Prize
The ANA/NDDC Prose Prize
The ANA/NDDC Poetry Prize (also called ANA/NDDC Gabriel Okara Poetry Prize)
The ANA/NDDC Flora Nwapa Prize for Women’s Writing
The ANA/Cadbury Poetry Prize
The ANA/Spectrum Prize
The ANA/Atiku Abubakar Prize for Children’s Literature
The ANA/Christopher Okigbo Prize
ANA Poetry Prize (also known as Association of Nigerian Authors Poetry Prize. This may be the same as one of the two poetry prizes above)
Nigeria Prize for Literature (this is also from the ANA)

Each needs to be researched for notability. The subject of the AFD won the Cadbury Poetry Prize for 2004.^[59] A quick scan did not fine WP:N references for the prize itself. --Marc Kupper|talk 11:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to Keep, as he appears to be notable, but this is so poorly written that it may need to go to the incubator or to the creator's user space. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radon therapy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a total mess; absolutely atrocious. This article has not been edited substantially in over a year, and is very confused about the safety/effects of radiation, claiming radon is a legitimate form of therapy, which AFAIK is simply not true. This article would need to be completely rewritten to be useful and in the mean time I think not having an article would be better than having this one. Thin boy 00 @094, i.e. 01:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbify. The topic is a valid alt-med idea (and there are RS about it), but I agree the article is a hopeless PR piece and travel brochure. This says it's a synonym for halotheraphy/speleotherapy, which are redirects to salt therapy, but it seems like radon therapy is used as a distinct meaning on our article. Needs to be rewritten from scratch in my opinion...cut it down to a stub with a cite to a lead ref or two. DMacks (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pruning it and tagging it for robust cleanup. Afd is not cleanup. I agree the article in its current state is plain terrible, but there's large room for improvement. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being messy and in need of improvement doesn't make it non-notable. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly real and important historically and to some extent today. Needs expansion, and NPOV, none of which is a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Air Hogs. Insufficient consensus to either delete outright or merge, but most agree this should not be a standalone article, and unsourced content should not be merged, as Stifle correctly notes. Redirecting is, therefore, the outcome most agreeable to this discussion. But if sources are provided, merging can also occur later from the history. Sandstein 17:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air Hogs Stormlauncher

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, this an un-notable toy. It even says in the article that it was only made in small numbers. It's unreferenced, and despite a search for some, I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. It also reads like an advert, which is usually something I'm inclined to fix through editing, but what's the point when the thing isn't notable? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge: For reasons given by nominator. There is a link to this page from the Air Hogs page, but it could just as well point to the article in the RC wikia [60] which duplicates this article.--RDBury (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Changing action) Given the additional references given below, it does seem that the product merits inclusion in WP. But, per WP:PRODUCT guidelines, it should be a section in the Air Hogs article.--RDBury (talk) 12:25, 15 September 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) 00:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Keep The story of this toy is interesting and unique enough to merit a WP article. Right now there are no reliable sources. If these could be found then keep, otherwise delete for now.Borock (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears that the correct name is "Air Hogs Storm Launcher" (note the space). There are a few GNews hits with that name: [61]. Unfortunately, most of them seem to be behind paywalls so they're hard to evaluate. Beyond the GNews hits, this review looks pretty professional, though RC Universe may or may not be a reliable source. There may very well be more sources out there, but that's what I found.--Chris Johnson (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 01:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no encyclopaedic value, unreferenced, self-promotion. New seeker (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far from notable. Possible merge if a suitable parent article can be found. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Air Hogs per B.Rossow. Cunard (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't merge because there are no sources, and all content in Wikipedia must have sources. Therefore, delete. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 2 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Alain Colas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The creator contested an IP's prod. I can't find significant coverage for this person. The subject created this article. Joe Chill (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability due to little to no coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Them From Space 03:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. So tagged. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A7, I see no assertion of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nritya Creations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't appear to be anything really notable about this dance group. There's some kind of award involved, but without referencing, I can't see that as plausible. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on gsearch there's no evidence that this group is notable. Eusebeus (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This isn't a dance group. The full name is Nritya Creations Academy of Dance. I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, per [62] - Winning first prize twice in an international competition as well as many other awards looks to me like they're notable enough for an article. -- œ ^™ 04:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 01:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep, cleanup; evidence of some notability exists. Mukadderat (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FilmFantastic Gold Coast Film Festival

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a non notable film festival. only 1 hit on gnews despite it occuring every year since 2004. [63]. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't look to be any significant coverage of this event. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With respects to the nominator, I found 27 g-news hits. No doubt we used different search parameters. I would surmise from looking at the articles in Gold Coast Bulletin, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Courier Mail, Advocate, Sydney Morning Herald , and Brisbane Times that it meets the WP:GNG for notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:20, 20 September 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) 01:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I couldn't fully evalute the sources found by MQS because many were behind paywalls but of those I could see most were just mentions in articles on other topics. Still, there is probably enough here to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 03:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Marathon at Hope College

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local fund raising event. No evidence of notability presented. (I also question the notability of some, if not all, of the other dance marathon articles.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Purely local event. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I am not a part of Hope College but I've definitely heard of their Dance Marathon. For the size of their school they raise more money per capita than many of the other Dance Marathons across the country. In fact, per capita, they are the largest in the State. Furthermore, I disagree with the second part of your comment - regarding the notability of the other Dance Marathon articles. These events literally change peoples lives by raising money for children's hospitals, and most of them make some sort of national news. Just because it isn't some awful disaster or something that you'd herd of before you joined wikipedia doesn't mean that it's not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.110.101.225 (talk • contribs)

I also disagree with this call. Even though I made the article, I am not involved with Dance Marathon on Hope's Campus - I just think it is a really awesome program and is probably the largest fundraisers for Children's Miricle Network and DeVos Children's hospital in West Michigan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.110.100.114 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good cause but fails notability. We do not put articles in Wikipedia just because we like the subject or think they are doing some good. Edison (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed good cause; however, no sources showing event covered by anyone other than the college and the organizations it contributed to. No sources from any media outlets. Can you provide an outside third party source that covered this? ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good cause, but not all good causes are notable. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable event. Giant Snowman 11:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yana Lewis Dance Company

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A business of unknown/unreferenced notability - Altenmann >t 17:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back with Yana Lewis - I can't find any evidence of separate notability. Bearian (talk) 12:21, 17 September 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) 01:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bearian above. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yana Lewis is just as nonnotable, and under deletion now. - Altenmann >t 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - a business of a nonnotable dancer. Twri (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable promotional article. - DustyRain (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with Yana Lewis. GlassCobra 22:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, no attempts of rescue during this long deletion discussion. Mukadderat (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete both this and Poekoelan. GlassCobra 22:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poekoelan Tjimindie Tulen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:V (no reliable third-party sources) and also appears to fail WP:MANOTE. I did a Google search and found a bunch of random webpages, but nothing that I would consider a reliable source. Google Books shows 1 passing mention in Black Belt magazine. Google News archives show 5 passing mentions but nothing in detail. Unless reliable sources focusing on this subject can be provided, the article should be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 16:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is to be deleted (and sadly, I had difficulty finding things on Google apart from one link), please also consider taking care of Poekoelan which I think is similar (or the exact same) to the above. Oh and the link I found was this: [64]. Please assess whether the ref is adequate or not. There is also a pretty lengthy blog article about it but again I don't think it would make the cut in saving this article.Calaka (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is primarily based on what I and others were taught as we studied this art. As it is a martial art, most of the information about it can not be learned on the internet but by studying the art itself (by that I mean, actually learning to fight). A great deal of the history of this art is passed orally from teacher to student. Also, by simply exploring poekoelan.com for about ten seconds you can find about 90% of the information that is contained in this article. I am in no way a skilled wikipedia user, but rather a major reader and an occasional editor, which is why this article is not very well put together. I am also somewhat shocked that the major editors of wikipedia (the people who actually know what they are doing) would rather delete an article than try and improve it by doing about ten seconds worth of research.legoman (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legoman, you stated that the "article is primarily based on what I and others were taught as we studied this art." You may not realize this, but what you have described is unverifiable original research, which is considered outside the goals of Wikipedia. If your concern is with ensuring that this information is published somewhere, you may wish to consider either your own website, or perhaps Wikibooks which has a more inclusive mission that might be appropriate for your goals. *** Crotalus *** 14:19, 28 September 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) 01:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yana Lewis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A dancer/choreographer of unknown/unreferenced notability - Altenmann >t 17:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no independent sources to verify notability of the dancer. Twri (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but merge Yana Lewis Dance Company into this bio. There is barely enough notability for one, much less two articles. There are some sources available here, there and yonder. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The dance company is just as nonnotable. The refs here there and yonder do no tell us why this dance teacher is special to be included into encyclopedia. For example, one of webpages says "playing principal roles in 'Sleeping Beauty', 'Coppelia', 'Swan Lake' and 'Peter and the Wolf", but it does not say was it in Metropolitan Opera or in George Washington High School. - Altenmann >t 14:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with Yana Lewis Dance Company. GlassCobra 22:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, no attempts of rescue during this long deletion discussion. Mukadderat (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lyudmila Sorokina

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing here proving notability. JaGa^talk 21:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no encyclopaedic value New seeker (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the article, this person was the first chief of the Museum of the Air Force of the Northern Fleet. Therefore this article adds very helpful information on this museum and the history of Russian air force and fleet. Removal of this article will result only in a gap in the knowledge base. SA ru (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SA_ru. Ferrer (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puddle Pull

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MADEUP. Non-notable game made up by a fraternity. Contested prod. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable hazing stunt. Bearian (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability outside of Miami University. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK, so it's hazing. Doesn't make it notable. It sounds like they're trying to promote the next game. I'd say {{db-spam}} on this account. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what Compfunk2 said. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments above. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Again, Puddle Pull is not hazing. It is a sporting event at Miami University that is about to have its 60th anniversary. I will agree that outside that Miami community it is probably not that notable, but having the Wikipedia article makes explaining it to other people a lot easier. remarc90 18:49, 24 September 2009 (EST) — remarc90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The subject has to have independent notability before it is added to Wikipedia. Please read WP:GNG. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shi'a Muslims

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Shi'a Muslims

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First, articles of these kind of things shouldn't be existed, that's why the categories are there for. Secondly the person who made this article is adding football players, which if we go by this, others will make lists for footballers of each sect and religion in this word... Imagine how many useless articles will be in Wikipedia.. List of Christians footballers, list of Christian Catholic Footballers, List of Christian Orthodox footballers, list of.. Suna footballers, Ismailizim footballers, Druz footballers, Jews footballers, Buddhism footballers … etc. Again, that's why the categories are there for. Mussav (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, although if no attempt is made to source the article, then delete it. I don't know where the idea comes up that we'll have a zillion "list of _____ footballers" articles. Don't we have articles about individual Christian church denominations called List of Baptists, List of Methodists, etc., some of whom may be athletes? What's the difference? Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This kind of list would allow things like List of right handed politicians or List of baseball players with red hair or List of blond actresses. Wikipedia may not be paper, but it is still a good idea to keep Listcruft down. Googlemeister (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Googlemeister. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some folks don't like lists, but they have been allowed from the earliest days of Wikipedia, and we have lots of lists on various subjects. I may not agree with the (sometimes extreme) religious beliefs of followers of the Shi'ite sect, but a list of such persons is not ridiculous as suggested. I cannot at all see comparing a list of people who subscribe to a particular belief system to a "list of right-handed politicians" or a "list of baseball players with red hair". Mandsford (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Category already exists of such thing and more useful, Category:Shi'a Muslims. so what is the point of creating of articles? Mussav (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are seldom more useful than lists, although both categories and lists are acceptable. On a good list, one can tell at a glance what the different persons are notable for. I like a category if I have time to click on each entry one by one. If I want to know what I'm looking for, a category isn't much help at all. However, I'm glad that you've pointed out that we do have a category called "Shi'a Muslims". It indicates that Shi'a Muslim, unlike "baseball players with red hair", is considered important enough to take note of. Mandsford (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. as long as each name either links to an article which mentions that the subject is a Shi'a Muslim, or if a redlink or nonlink a reference here for notability AND religion, how is this any different than the aforementioned List of Baptists, List of Methodists? This is an easily verifiable list with definable inclusion criteria. its not "cruft", as this is a real religious denomination, and affiliation with it is eminently notable, and a major factor in the public persona for many of these people. dividing the list into subcategories could become hairsplitting, but the degree of categorization of the list is not an argument for deletion. proposing this for deletion opens up for deletion every list with definable inclusion criteria that has lots of links to existing articles. thats all of them. while i agree that there is often redundancy between lists and categories, and i do prefer category over list for things like this, if someone wants to put in the effort to create this list, and others make some effort to maintain it, i say leave it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The list of Shia Islam is actually un-sourced and disputed so this article does not match the criteria in many ways. Mussav (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than unsourced (which is the main problem that I see with this), what other criteria do you think it doesn't meet? As noted, we have a category tag added for Shi'a Muslims, and we have other lists of people of a certain religion. List of Baptists is quite well-sourced. On the other hand, List of Methodists suffers the same problem as this list. So what's the difference between List of Shi'a Muslims and List of Methodists? Easy. Nobody would dare nominate a list of Methodists. To do so would attract a swarm of !keep votes and "this can be rescued" comments from white American, Australian and British men who grew up around Christians. But a list of Shi'a Muslims? Nah. I'd say that most Wikipedians, even if they do one of those "Why some of my best friends are Muslims" lines, wouldn't know or care whether that person was Shi'a, Sunni, Wahhabi, etc. Mandsford (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I too have some concerns about whether this article may get some unfairly biased commentators. I hope and trust that WP will try to avoid that kind of behavior. this list is not the same as a list of "islamists" which is probably a much more controversial term. and to address Mussavs issues of sourcing and disputed content: the blue links dont need sources in this article, only in the article they point to. and any blue linked name where the persons religion is either not sourced or not patently obvious (say, leaders of nations with solid shi'a govts), should just be removed. they can always be added later if a source is found. I dont like saying "why not improve it by checking the linked articles?" cause it always sounds like im abrogating responsibility, but then i remember this is a voluteer effort, and im not obliged to go any further than i feel. (though i do try to not start projects and stop them midway, leaving articles half cleaned half not).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Look at this - Lists of Jews. Izzedine (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is way too broad of a topic for us to pretend to have a list that covers each of the entities with due respect. This is appropriate for a category, but as there are many different Shi'ite sects it would be inappropriate blend them together within one list article and assert that their religion is a defining characteristic which bonds them all together, which is the inherant nature of list-type articles. Instead, I would advocate lists of a smaller scope where the clumping of individuals has more encyclopedic relevance; such as a list of Imams, list of companions to Muhammad, list of theologians, etc Them From Space 04:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldnt we then have this article broken up into sections, by sect or other terms relevant to Shi'a Muslims? That would be like having a "lists of christians", with various sects, and eventually each could have a separate list as it developed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMO, These lists should be deleted and converted to categories. A list of Asian Jews and A List of African Jews? Isn't that discrimination? List of a religion separated by race... interesting. Mussav (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can we please have civility? this type of arguing is unconstructive and to most people i suspect crosses over into racism, antisemitism, or prejudice against islam. NONE of this is relevant. Shi'a Islam is a major, documented branch of Islam, and lists of people of that faith can and should be created, as long as they are verifiable and have objective inclusion criteria. the same goes for all the other lists above. I would suspect major Jewish and Moslem social scientists would agree on this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mussav has not said anything uncivil. I would add that to the extent that anyone intends to suggest that another person is a bigot, that is most definitely not civil. I'm assuming that it is not your intent to imply that anyone else in this discussion is guilty of racism, anti-Semitism (whether Judaism or Islam), etc. I'm like Mussav; I think it's kind of unusual that all of the articles listed as examples seem to have the word "Jews" in them, but that's just my observation. Mandsford (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct, no incivility has occurred. but i am very concerned that we are starting to move away from what are considered valid reasons for having lists. there is NOTHING "discriminatory" about having lists of people by nationality, ethnicity, religion. these are facts. if the lists are well sourced, have inclusion criteria that make sense, and someone, anyone, wants to create and help grow the list, then it stands. i actually am more inclined to support categories over lists, but lists are here to stay (some are poorly defined, though). some lists do provide more information than the categories, esp. when the name has birth and death years, and a few words about notability. I would support having more lists for each and every ethnic group and religion, and having names appear on multiple lists. What i would NOT support is peoples names going on lists where its not crystal clear they beling on the list, or crystal clear that that notability is somehow connected to the lists subject. i wouldnt want people who privately practice their religion listed publicly. and im sorry if i implied bad intent, i was just concerned about the way the arguments were being presented. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why all the examples I listed are about Jews is because I copied the list from the Lists of Jews page, in case my earlier comment would be ignored, to show how many lists there are for Jews alone. That I had to explain this is frustrating. Izzedine (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- i am sorry if seemed to misunderstand you, or offended you. your point, though, is well taken, though we have to be careful about invoking other articles to justify one particular one. however, i think the evidence (some of which you show here) is overwhelming that we have many list articles on nearly exactly parallel subjects, and they are not being subject to afd's.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful list per WP:LIST, yet not because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tontine (TV show)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a possible reality television show, which never came to fruition. The initial announcement and subsequent lack of filming or other information is already covered on Rob Mariano. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:52, 15 September 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) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the "Five Pillars of Wikipedia" including NPOV NO RULES AND IS AN encyclopedia! Testmasterflex (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...I think you got the pillars mixed up somehow. Anyway, delete because all the Ghits I found are from 2007. There is no recent info about the show at all, so I think it's safe to conclude that we won't be seeing it any time soon. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No resources whatsoever, nothing saying it's going to be produced. I see a bad case of crystalballery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Proposed pilot from former annoying reality show contestant that never got past the development stage. No sources, not even a pilot produced. Nate • (chatter) 08:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Can't have an entry on every failed idea anyone ever had. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bamil

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a musician that does not meet notability. Based on the username of the originator of the article, there is a conflict of interest as the name is the same as his record label. by itself, that is not a reason for deletion. However, I can find no reliable sources writing about this musician or his work. The record label itself appears to have only this musician in its roster. The charting claims in the article all relate to charts on websites and not recognized national music charts. Whpq (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or find references. Article presently contains no references, and WP:BLP requires refs for articles on living people. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:18, 16 September 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) 00:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 FourFourTwo (Australia). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four Four Two Australian Awards

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't seem to be much notability here. All the sources provided are FourFourTwo itself and there doesn't seem to be much independent notability. Perhaps some of it could be merged into the much smaller article FourFourTwo (Australia). Spiderone 12:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I think it should be "FourFourTwo" instead of "Four Four Two". Spiderone 12:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom; not enough significant third-party coverage to justify having a seperate article. Giant Snowman 12:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable magazine awards that are not highly regarded in the Football (soccer) industry. --Jimbo^[online] 13:58, 21 September 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) 00:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - may lead to a better article for both. Either that or put the relevant information in the individual player's article if it isn't there already. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (everything except the large lists) and Redirect to FourFourTwo (Australia). GlassCobra 22:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamariweb

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though a rewrite is needed. The Google hits certainly suggest that this is a significant portal in Pakistan, and sources in Urdu might tell a different story. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We may need some help from someone who can do a search in the appropriate languages. Alexa says this is the 31st largest site in Pakistan -- I'd be mighty surprised if there are no sources.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Hegarty

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only claim of notability is Hegarty being a co-founder of the Church of Satan organization. Her role is listed on the Church of Satan page and this article adds very little beyond that fact to Wikipedia (apart from being an administrator, copy editor and mother). I can see no evidence of awards or an "enduring historical record" in order to meet WP:N. The page should be deleted rather than merged as there is nothing of importance to add to the main Church of Satan article. Ash (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Church of Satan. Fails WP:BIO, needs INDEPENDENT WP:RS. Drawn Some (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources from here and here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note) The sources added do not appear to address notability as mentions of her in the press only confirm her role as already described in the nomination.—Ash (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete There are a lot of sources out there and it is possible that the totality will be enough. There is for example, this article which focuses on her divorce [65]. But right now I'm not sure if there's enough. It might make more sense to have her name redirect to a section in her former husband's article where we can use some of this sourced content rather than redirecting to the Church where information about her won't reasonably fit in. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that co-founding a worldwide religion that has tens of thousands of followers would be notable enough. I say keep it. bruce (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.166.154 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 September 2009[reply]

— 98.203.166.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bruce. There is plenty of documentation out there. She is important in her own right, not just as a bit on the Church of Satan page. She should have the name Diane LaVey restored to the entry, as this was the name was known by for decades, and that she used even before the period of the Church of Satan. She should not be only in the Church of Satan page, as the leadership of that organization after she left has been very hostile to her, and tried as much as possible to write her out of it's history. There are conflicting versions of events, which cannot be reconciled in one entry. Also her early association with Anton LaVey, the setting up of his Magic Circle gatherings, etc. were all before the Church of Satan existed. Her association and adventures with many celebrities is also outside any Church of Satan discussion.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoZ (talk • contribs)

— HugoZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For now, weak merge and redirect to Church of Satan. For now. There's some stuff out there about her, and I think if I were me I'd want to see more before I said keep. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motor-CAD

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly specialised software package. The author disputed a prod but has made to attempt to add evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 21:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bara (artist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO Not finding coverage in 3rd party sources, though the name makes searching very difficult. RadioFan (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was likewise unable to find reliable sources to establish notability. JUJUTACULAR 21:15, 15 September 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) 00:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bara is an awesome artist with lots of NPOV and notability. It also is very reliable sources. Testmasterflex (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is based on references to reliable sources not how any of us feel about the subject. There have been no POV concerns expressed so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.--RadioFan (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An NPOV article about a non-notable subject is still non-notable. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Community Theatre

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability present here. While the group obviously exists and does have a fair number of Ghits, all seem to either be trivial, self-published, or not about the theatre group itself. Almost every town has something like this, and I have a very hard time believing they're all notable on their own. Declined speedy. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, unreferenced, self-promotion New seeker (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To save you a page load, the theatre group is based in Moscow, Idaho. One might surmise that the 11K Google hits refer in good part to the more notable Moscow. Anarchangel (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guerilla Gay Bar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N Mkdw ^talk 00:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Seems to fail WP:CORP. Also, the article is confusing in that Google hits suggest it's a bar while the article itself is written as though it's some kind of social group. It also doesn't help that most of the links are from either the official website or Facebook. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend not deleting. This is a band of loosely connected social groups, not a business and it is helpful to have an entry explaining the concept and linking to the sites of the groups. Just because some people don't understand/support the concept does not mean it should be deleted.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.68.134.132 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 September 2009

Comment - While I am sympathetic to the idea, I am not certain that the concept is notable. I've found a couple of sources, but I'd like to see a serious effort at fixing the sourcing problems. Bearian (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete i thought it was candy when i clicked it but it seems to be a bunch of jibberish and nonsense Original Research so i say Speedy Delete Big Padres Dude 00:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Although an interesting enteprise, i just don't think this particular group is notable enough. The sourcing at the moment is certainly not good enough to show notability. Weak delete, as i only did a quick source search, so a more detirmined effort to find good secondary sources that non-trivially discuss this group would change my mind. I found a couple if local news articles, but they don't add up to this being notable yet.Yob Mod 08:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may have been some original confusion from sources discussing gay guerilla organizations and some of these being gay bars. The strict term "Guerilla Gay Bar" is only referred to in circular sources (i.e. printouts of Wikipedia published by Icon Group International). All other sources included fail WP:RS in obvious ways.—Ash (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I have participated in a few of these events. I think they will be notable in the future, but they don't seem to cross the notability threshold right now. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 15:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with the exception of a couple of offline books (which appear to be sourcing minor explanatory points rather than being about the concept itself) reliable sourcing is lacking. Lots of blogs, one or two news-ish articles written by volunteers and without a clear metric of their reliability. Not enough yet for an article but warrants a mention in another article about direct action techniques in the queer community and in Gay bar. Otto4711 (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sole argument for keeping the page is not supported up by any evidence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frezza

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This drink does not seem to have anything notable, nor anything is claimed. I'd propose speedy delete under A7, but this is not even a company, only a particular product. Goochelaar (talk) 08:28, 15 September 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) 00:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. I couldn't really find any Ghits other than the official website. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is notable drink. --Wanhamies (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 23:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mambo Kingz

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE. Fails WP:MUSIC, these producers do not appear to be notable enough to garner significant and non-trivial coverage from multiple third party publications deemed reliable as per the reliability standards set forth in WP:RS. (1) JBsupreme (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 15 September 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) 00:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nafees Siddiqui

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have removed the speedy from this article per the discussion on the talk page:

Discussion

Is this the politician of this name? If so, notability might be established. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but the article claims this chap is a writer. Ironholds (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking around, and the politician may be a columnist, at least. In any case I'm unhappy at how many politicians from the subcontinent have pages deleted early, when their counterparts in Europe or North America certainly wouldn't. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for sources about this individual and have been unable to find any that connect the politician of the same name with the subject of this article, a writer. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are multiple spelling variations for his name - given that he's an Urdu writer, it appears that there's no consistency on the English spelling. Worldcat shows that 12 of his books listed, and the couple that I checked seem to be held in many libraries. But I'm unable to even verify the nationality of the person - is he Indian or Pakistani? But given that the article says that he's done some stuff for Doordarshan and All India Radio and the author's only other contribution is to Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, I'm guessing he's Indian. If he's the author with the worldcat listing, notability is likely to be shown, if someone can dig up vernacular resources. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person being discussed in this article is notable as a writer. He may or may not also be a politician, but there is no reason to think he is. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 18 September 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) 00:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a CV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless unambiguous sources are found before this AFD closes. As SpacemenSpiff notes, the person is potentially notable, but the name is relatively common (especially if you include spelling variations), so unless we find at least one authoritative biographical source, we risk creating a chimeric biography, which would be worse than having no article at all. Abecedare (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nativity in Black. — Jake Wartenberg 23:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullring Brummies

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A one-off supergroup that recorded one song together for the Black Sabbath tribute album Nativity in Black. They never played live together and there are no sources that even suggest further collaborations. All of the text from the article is also at the Nativity in Black page, so no need to merge. J04n(talk page) 03:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as J04n said - this info is already at the Nativity in Black page. A simple redirect to that page should be all that is needed. BeastmasterGeneral 15:41, 16 September 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) 00:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redirection is better as this page is not informative anyway New seeker (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Plan 9 from User Space. — Jake Wartenberg 23:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V9fs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This software article does not make any claim to be notable. It has no references. The external links are documentation and download sites. Wikipedia is not a software catalog and is not a how-to guide. Miami33139 (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent software collection, Plan 9 from User Space --Cybercobra (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Cybercobra. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There have been no other votes in the full time period that this was set to close. I am treating this BLP1E as an uncontested prod. If you can bring up a valid keep rationale, I am willing to reverse my close and reopen the debate. NW (Talk) 01:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Castigador

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 03:07, 15 September 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) 00:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 23:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Holloway

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN Actor. Only claim to fame is appearing uncredited in a handful of Star Trek episodes, receiving one line. — Music Maker 5376 03:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nom says it all. Doesn't fulfill any criterion of WP:ENTERTAINER. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ENT. Shark96z (talk) 01:12, 22 September 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) 00:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very reluctantly, if only because 31 episodes is far from a handful; a "regular extra" -- is there not some union rule about this (or was that the reason for the one line in one episode?) htom (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An extra with only one line. Joe Chill (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ENT. His part in Star Trek is not substantial. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 21:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essentially an extra with no other history - non-notable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 23:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie MacDonald (entertainer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article lacks cited reliable sources, lacks notability and currently has Bio issues. Bidgee (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What the article lacks is no reason to delete it. Reliable sources are available[66]. However, apart from one follow-up article[[67]], he is only known for one event, being a Big Brother housemate. Per WP:BLP1E, he fails our criteria for an article. Fram (talk) 09:31, 9 September 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) 00:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fram. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 19:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oikophobia

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a close call, so putting to AFD for more opinions. Extensive sourcing, but appears to be a neologism 5 years old. Possibly suitable for transwiki to Wiktionary, but basically a dictdef (if any dictionary even lists it). Durova³¹⁸ 02:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- certainly seems to be more than just a dic-def to me. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - it is certainly odd and badly formatted, but it has citations, so I'm leaning towards keeping it, with fixes. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article contains rather more than a dictionary definition and I expect will expand further over time as this concept is more widely discussed in academic circles. Ben Finn (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oik! Oik! Keep as notable enough for its own article [68] Mandsford (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BakBone Software. — Jake Wartenberg 23:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SparkEngine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This looks like an advertisement page. It's failed a PROD before, but I'm pretty sure it qualifies under G11 of the CSD. It hasn't shown much improvement since it was first written, and I don't think it's going to see any, as it doesn't seem notable. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to ColdSpark, Inc. --UltraMagnus (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: ColdSpark, Inc. is up for deletion as well. $TheWeak$ $Willed$ (T * G) 15:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 September 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, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Relisting because the AFD on ColdSpark, Inc., the suggested merge target, has been closed as "Merge to BakBone Software". Also, the discussion wasn't sorted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to whatever the parent company's article is. I've lost track. Is it BakBone Software this week? B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=88535

[1] ttp://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=88535

[1]