Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 19

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

The result was Delete per consensus --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

another random combination. neither country has a resident ambassador, in fact Uruguay decided to close its embassy. coverage is mainly multilateral not bilateral [1]. yes the Uruguayuan president visited in 2007, and the usual double taxation agreement but these alone are not enough for notable relations. the 2 countries played a Youth World Cup football match in 1997 and I know of at least 1 editor who thinks such info advances notability. clearly not. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gotta disagree with LibStar on this one. As unlikely as co-operation between these two nations would seem, the agreements worked out on the Uruguayan President's visit less than two years ago ([2] shows that they're strenghtening their relationship. I wouldn't have believed it-- Uruguay isn't even on the Pacific. But it goes beyond training together on UN Peacekeeping missions, and this ain't no random pairing. Mandsford (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99% of state visits are about expanding cooperation with the usual diplomatic cliches like would significantly contribute towards expanding the scope of bilateral cooperation. The Leaders also exchanged views on regional and international issues Would like to see some third party coverage of this. If the relationship is so notable, why doesn't Uruguay reopen its embassy? LibStar (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - every meeting of this sort (except perhaps this one) ends in an airy promise to "strengthen bilateral cooperation", and besides, the source mentioning the meeting breaches WP:GNG (it's not independent). Show me multiple, independent sources actually discussing "Malaysia–Uruguay relations", and I'll gladly change my vote. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence that the relations are notable; handle as Foreign Relations of X. JJL (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A shared multilateral membership and the promise of strengthening relations (as all countries seem to strive for) doesn't make this pair of nations stand out from any other. No secondary coverage of the topic, thus, fails WP:GNG. BlueSquadronRaven 16:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per users Biruitorul and BlueSquadronRaven. Not notable and whilst that only few Uruguayans or Malaysians in those bilateral nations. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 04:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As mentioned, there is little in the way of notable bilateral agreements, a closed embassy and the regular diplospeak about wanting to improve relations. Have you ever heard someone conclude a state visit saying "I hope our relations get worse"? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You weren't following the news when W. was setting the tone for US foreign relations, were you? -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contrary to what some allege, I try not to let my politics intrude on my !votes. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wrong venue. Please list at WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Miami Bi**h (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CENSOR; Wikipedia is not censored. —Coastergeekperson04^{'s talk}@ 23:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This should be at RfD. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is there an easy, quick, and efficient way to move this discussion? —Coastergeekperson04^{'s talk}@Jul/20/09 00:34 (Look, I changed my sig just moments ago!)
• Keep Redirects are cheap, and this one is doing no harm. Some sources do list it with asterisks, and although yes, we're not censored, we also have to be sane and realize that the record company and radio stations censor themselves in turn. I see no need for a further RfD nomination either. Nate • (chatter) 00:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Kind of a silly redirect. Regardless of whether they're cheap or not, do we have to have a "clean" version of every possibly offensive article title? If someone can't figure out what "bi**h" is, then make that a redirect to bitch instead. And if someone doesn't want to type a dirty word, they can ask their friend to so. Mandsford (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree these sorts of redirects shouldn't be created en masse, but while it's here there's really no point in deleting it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. WP:RS and WP:ORG requirements are more than satisfied, and it is highly unlikely that a cogent argument for deletion can now be made. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation B'nai Israel (Bridgeport, CT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No apparent or asserted notability Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nominated for deletion four minutes after the article was created? May I recommend Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply — Four minutes, four days, for months or four years won't make a difference to a non-notable subject, unless the subject happens to become notable sometime after the article's created. But that's not how it works here. First the subject is notable, then we can have an article about it. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (without prejudice to delete later) give the article time to be built, wilya? COULD be notable, we don't know yet. I've heard the "time won't make a difference with a non-notable subject" argument before and my experience is that if the article is written in good faith (which I believe this one is) a little bit of time can indeed make a difference and clarity will come through in the end.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I've moved the article to Congregation B'nai Israel (Bridgeport, Connecticut). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article already contains multiple sources; moreover I would suggest that this temple is inherently notable by virtue of its age (150 this year) and history as Bridgeport's first Jewish congregation.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep B'nai Israel is 150 years old, the oldest synagogue in Bridgeport, and the third oldest in the state of Connecticut. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested prod of a porn actress who fails the WP:BIO guidelines pertaining to porn stars. Other than IMDB citations to show she acted in two films, the remaining sources are the subject's web site. There is also a conflict of interest issue in play, as it appears the subject has written the article. Regardless of who's writing it, notability isn't met. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - COI, WP:PORNSTAR -Falcon8765 (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — COI, WP:PORNSTAR —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Scheinwerfermann. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of Nobility and COI problems as well. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 09:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional article with no serious claim to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Shameless self promotion Triplestop x3 20:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Actually, she might pass WP:PORNBIO, but without sources, fails WP:V. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rufino Pablo Baggio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previous AfD ended in "no consensus" due to lack of participation. Google News hits show trivial coverage. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not picking up any notability here. Anyone else?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability, lack of GHits, no Gnews etc. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 09:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No WP:RS to help distingusih WP:N. Not unsurprisingly: subject appears to be a moderately successful but unremarkable businessman. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, I probably shouldn't be doing this, but I couldn't help myself. This appears to be a web-based software library that isn't notable enough to have its own article. The article is mainly a statement of the library's features, without proof of notability. Also, the references provided are simply links to the project's web site, and the tone contains a hint of advertising (although this is a secondary concern). The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 22:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it exists. but No reliable sources are covering it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reliable sources, no verifiability, no apparent notability; WP:MADEUP Accounting4Taste:talk 22:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seriously? The only real links are to Facebook posts, and they're not only all the same link, but they--I mean it's a dead link (there should really be a speedy criteria for games). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd even go so far to say it could be a hoax or someething...--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' also looks like self-promotion: primary article editor is User:Koola.i.am. Might be speedy because of that... is self-promotion a speedy?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was bold (well, maybe just lazy) and tagged this for speedy deletion because I thought it was very much a case of WP:MADEUP without any claims to notability whatever, and felt that WP:SNOW might apply. But of course that isn't actually a speedy criterion. --bonadea contributions talk 09:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a problem for me -- we agreed on the ultimate destination, it's just that the route was different. I've been stung before by not doing this sort of deletion to the letter, but you're right, it was pretty much impossible to find a justification for not deleting it. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE! Koola is a well known sport for the younger generation. Ask your kids about the game, they will tell you what it is. a facebook page is already set up, to delete this entry would be pathetic. a farce! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.158.164 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I love Facebook, but I don't think you realize that a social networking site like that isn't a reliable source. And I'm surprised I'm the first one that noticed this article was created by User:Koola.i.am. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per we don't need another silly homemade game article. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a British game hence why probably you 'Yanks' dont know much about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.158.164 (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment could be hmmm okay.. give us a reference.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete - no reliable sources to establish notabulity. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC) (not a Yank)[reply]
• Delete. Oh so this one of those its-British-you-wouldn't-understand jobbies? My arse it is. The Plutonium 27 household competitive sport that blends Operation! with pairs synchronised swimming was inspired by our British kitchen sink - using 86.139's reasoning it therefore deserves a Koola-complimentary article at least. You kids take your ball, go on home and consider putting your online dissemination skills to writing about something factual. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTE. Clearly not notable, WP:RS also a issue here as well. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. Some strong suggestions for a merge to Firefox but due to the size of that article, I would suggest a standard "mergeto" proposal be made. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources to establish the notability (tagged since May) of this version of Firefox, relies almost entirely on primary sources, the single third party source has questionable reliability. All the necessary information can be covered in a single sentence in the Firefox article, with a decent source. Rehevkor ✉ 22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Firefox. We don't have (and wouldn't want) articles for Firefox (Macintosh edition), Firefox (Windows edition), Firefox (Unix edition), etc. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep or Merge or redirect to the Firefox page: the interest in this is big, so I think at the very least it should be merged to the main Firefox Page. SF007 (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with main Firefox page as there is interest in this. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 09:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge — to the Firefox page.  Dspradau → talk  16:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep or merge with PortableApps.com since it is more related to that and not Firefox. Antonio López ^(desu) 16:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. SF007 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the main article, although is a minor software installer. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 16:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Firefox use full info that maybe source able but don't need a full article (yet) --Nate1481 10:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I'm not opposed to a merge, I think an article such as this [3] which was published in the July 2005 edition of Maximum PC helps show that this software is indeed very much notable. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added these two references to the article:

• "DIY Super Guide: Make a USB Key Travel Kit". Maximum PC. Brisbane, CA: Future US: 28. July 2005. ISSN 1522-4279.
• Scott, Bob (February 2005). "Toolbox: Keychain Browser". Make. 1. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media: 179. ISBN 0-596-00922-4.

--Tothwolf (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This software is very notable and had many reviews made about it. Just check its press page at http://portableapps.com/about/press/news and it shows all of the reviews that have been about it. If this software isn't notable then I don't know what is. How do scam companies like jamba get onto wikipedia but useful software like this is up for deletion. It is completely unfair on small, trustworthy companies. ZZZChris (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those seem to be about Portableapps itself, or the suite, not this software. The fact other stuff exists bares no relevance here. Portableapps still has a page, and it's survived an AFD, any information can be merged there, a separate page for this simply isn't necessary. Rehevkor ✉ 20:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, the references I mentioned above that I've added to the article are specifically about Portable Firefox and directly address your concerns of notability and primary sources which you stated when you nominated this article for deletion. Put simply, anything left (including a possible article merger) is an editorial issue that should be discussed on the relevant talk pages and is not something that should be dealt with via AfD. Both of these references were easily found via Google Books (although Make magazine is not available for preview, I do have a copy of that issue) and both could have been added instead of nominating this for AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with more references. Do not recommend piggybacking it on the already overloaded main Firefox page. Digita (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Page Melissa Palmer, M.D. (which is now a redirect to page Melissa Palmer) was prodded "Non-notable physician - only one ref in PubMed, very few hits on google scholar and one consumer oriented book|month = July|day = 19|year = 2009|time = 22:23|timestamp = 20090719222342" at 22:23, 19 July 2009 by User:G716 . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Reads like a promotional CV, fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTLINKEDIN. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reads like an ad. Subject could be notable perhaps, but this article is not. Can I have an ad, too?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. This is an ad at best and I'd love to vote delete. However, subject is considered somewhat notable based on her book. Needs rewrite. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 09:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 10:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the subject does meet the criteria for notability. Should I take out the awards and honors, and add numerous citations in medical journals? I have such references, just didn't want to clutter up the bio with them. Please advise. Thank you. Voros1975 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)— Voros1975 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I removed the ad-sounding material (awards, honors). I also added many medical journal and medical article citations to an "additional references" section at the end. Dr. Palmer's book has sold over 300,000 copies since 2000 when it was first published; I've heard (though don't quote me on this) that selling more that 20K books per year qualifies the book to be considered a best-seller by the NYTimes. (I checked Nielsen's BookScan for details; but you have to have an account to log in). Voros1975 (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)— Voros1975 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please only !vote once. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the claim that the article is "ad-sounding" is unsubstantiated. To be an ad means to be promoting a person, product or service overtly and knowingly, and thus to violate WP:NPOV. Ideally, you'd want a more critical review of the person, which would include critiques of work and/or criticism or controversy. However, I have scanned the Web thoroughly and haven't found any critiques of Palmer or her practice.

Also, to be advertising-sounding, IMHO, means that promotional language and weasel words would proliferate. However, this article doesn't include promotional words and phrases such as "best", "most influential", "one of the top", "bestselling", etc. The only real promotional-sounding phrase is "one of the largest medical practices". That statement probably needs either citation or removal. But other than that, I see no real reason for the AFD flag. Theinclusionist (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Theinclusionist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have concerns about the images. The one of her in her lab coat is taken from her website, which has no copyright statements on it (and if I were the company that created that site, I sure wouldn't brag about it), thus it cannot be public domain without a permission. The image of her as a bodybuilder is released as the property of the uploader, with no proof. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum. I have also added a few more references, and cleaned up a bit more. Should I remove the images? I found the main image here:

Google Images The bodybuilder image was already in Wikimedia Commons. I don't know anything about its permissions. Voros1975 (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)— Voros1975 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. Melissa Palmer is notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. And the content is verified by reliable sources. Many individuals with long-standing Wikipedia pages have contributed less, of note, to the world than she. We want to avoid a scenario wherein Wikipedia comes to be viewed as having arbitrary, or inconsistent, standards for inclusion. Monkeyscantgethurt (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Monkeyscantgethurt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Moderate Keep. Well, I guess I'll chime in, too. Let me state first that I'm not a huge fan of the article, but of course, that in itself isn't grounds for deletion. I want to try to judge the article on its own merits. As for the pics? Isn't it obvious, that if there's no copyright label on the pics, the argument that Who then was a gentleman? raised is a non-issue? Anyways, that photo's all over the place on the Web - not just Google images. Whothencanbesaved (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Whothencanbesaved (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually, no, that's not the way it works. Unless a page specifically says that it doesn't claim copyright, then we must assume that they are claiming copyright. And just because other sites violate copyright, doesn't mean that Wikipedia will. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • So what you're saying is: that the pic is on nationally recognized online journals, e.g., the American Journal for Gastroenterology et al, means: these orgs. have used the pic illegally, violating Palmer's copyright? C'mon!
      

My only point is: I think we as editors should do some digging to find out the facts ourselves, before just marking something for deletion or citing a problem that is really a non-problem. We hold the writers to high fact-checking standards; why should we be exempt?
Look at all the places this image exists in the public domain? [4] [5]

I'm simply saying, your argument is unfounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whothencanbesaved (talk • contribs) 13:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)— Whothencanbesaved (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is find proof that the image has been released to a license compatible with Wikipedia's licenses. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the pics in accordance with whothencanbesaved's arguments. Voros1975 (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral but seriously, clean it up.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to last comment. I already cleaned up significantly. Can you be a little more specific as to what else you want me to change?

Voros1975 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While it's possible a cleanup will solve some issues, establishing notability will require additional information. Lines like "Palmer's research has been cited in discussions of the Model for End Stage Liver Disease" in mainspace don't help the case. — AjaxSmack 00:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unreferenced article which is entirely speculation and rumour and gives no inidcation that the song is notable per WP:NSONG. I cannot find anything to substantiate this is even a Jonas Brother song, so a redir would be inappropriate - delete. I42 (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. This song does not exist. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not speedy though - I had to look pretty hard on Google to make sure that it didn't exist. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — per King of Hearts.  Dspradau → talk  16:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fancruft to the T. I'd have no problem with it being speedied as speculation or a hoax. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable, although there are items in the article that are not speculation. This seems to be listed under the wrong category though - Music and Media would be more appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this is an obvious WP:BLP1E. Some edit history may also violate WP:BLP. Significant edit was this one a year ago but nobody put information back into place. Magioladitis (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found this book entry but no other coverage about her. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BLP1E--KenWalker | Talk 18:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I have no idea what this is talking about. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This might be speedy no-context material, but it's long enough I'm sure something explains what it is somewhere, I just don't see it.

It looks to be context-free "excerpts from 'Amnesty International'", maybe copy-pasted (can't find original). The article name is a surname used with 2 different contexts in the article, part of which is in spanish.

This article's a disaster. No user coming onto this would have any idea how to improve it either. Shadowjams (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. This article is quite possibly an attack piece directed at Alain Mesili (the same author removed Mesili from List of climbers). See also this comment at French newspaper liberation.fr (in French). Astronaut (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - What the...? A complete lack of context. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as CSD G7 at author's request. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable card game. Fails to establish notability. Shadowjams (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously, they should have a CSD for articles that assert that they were made up. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been saying this for a while, specifically in reference to drinking/card games. Any interest in an RfC on the topic? Shadowjams (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete; deleted as a copyvio by Anthony.bradbury, no more action necessary (non-admin closure). The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 22:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyvio of http://www.lightglove.com/infofr.htm   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This had been deleted once before for the same copy-vio, and was recreated a few minutes later. The user then removed the CSD tag. It's been restored. There's no reason this should waste people's time for 7 days. Not to mention, it's a painfully obvious copy-vio and needs to be removed quickly per policy. Shadowjams (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if an admin would speedy it again and sanction the uploader.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest common divisor and least common multiple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems unnecessary to have a page with just links to two well-defined concepts. Favonian (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just tried it to see if it would be exceptionally okay, because de:Größter gemeinsamer Teiler und kleinstes gemeinsames Vielfaches is mistakenly linking to lcm. Goal is or was to link to that new article. -- Emdee (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Besides being an incredibly unlikely search term, it's an article that doesn't enlighten anybody about either concept. Apparently, there's a German article that uses these two together, but let's just say that something got "lost in the translation". Mandsford (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unlikely-search-term without any content of its own. It's a new DAB/summary-style page that doesn't seem to serve any purpose. DMacks (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've started to split the DE-article; you're probably right: There should not be an article just because of another interwiki. -- Emdee (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unneeded dab page. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• So what page on English Wikipedia should we link the German article to? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest common divisor is a possibility. So is Least common multiple. Just a thought. Mandsford (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the new pages (after this here was marked for deletion) with the correct interwikis. Since there has not been any contradiction you can speeddelete that one here now. -- Emdee (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given Emdee's comment, it's a moot point. However, "because some other language links to it" doesn't (IMO) make a page viable. Conversely, "page X:foo is covered in Y:foo1 and Y:foo2, which interwiki link should X:foo give?" is a good question, which is up to editors of X:foo to decide. Perhaps there's a more general page on the topic (i.e., not a simple translation or direct "other language equivalent"). DMacks (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Related terms that are not ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This should be kept as the correct target for the German interwiki. The other two articles are not the correct targets, as neither of them covers the same topic as the German article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• the charge that the article is irrelivant to the search(by DMacks) does not hold, and they were not just links- they containg correct info., sure they could be developed further, both are closely related in mathermatics.....Jomoal99 (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and immediate delete. The irresponsible argument that we should keep articles because it's in the German wikipedia's structure is harmful to us; there is no reason (until all possible material in the world is translated) that the interests should be the same. (If I were a German editor faced with this silly problem, I'd consider using two interwiki tags - had you thought of this? ). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not talking about an article, but a glorified disambiguation page. Otherwise there is no accurate interwiki for the German article, in the sense that neither of our articles can point back to it. This issue of interwiki creep, where meanings change as one follows links from one language to another, can only be avoided with pages such as this one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Schade</irony> Interwiki creep can't be avoided at all. Languages do differ; not least in the ways they divide up the world. Learn to live with it; I have made the obvious suggestion on how to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The transitive closure of interwiki links should give the equivalence relation "covers the same topic". In cases like this, where the German project has one article and we have two, no interwiki links are appropriate without a disambig page. Your suggestion would lead to the result that our article on greatest common divisor is classified as covering the same topic as our article on least common multiple, after the transitive closure of the interwiki links is taken. That would be very unfortunate. The same problem would occur with interwiki links from our article Eigenvalue, eigenvector, and eigenspace to a project that has 3 separate articles. That other project needs to make a disambig page to be the target of our interwiki link. Given the near-zero cost of maintaining a disambig article, this is a small price to pay for collegiality between projects and usability of the interwiki links system. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • • So what? We are not a translation of the German Wikipedia, nor they of us; and if they were, you'd get the same answer. Translation isn't transitive; it isn't even transitive if one translates from language L to M and back again; see invisible idiot. This is a pipedream, and harmful to Wikipedia. This vermiform appendix of an article is a small but real part of the problem. Delete now, unconditionally.
            • There's no need to yell. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any project which has a blank article to provide interwiki links for Eigenvalue, eigenvector, and eigenspace is run by imbeciles; the proper solution in such a case is to have three interwiki links in our article (if necessary, in a text paragraph explaining the situation). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Having two interwiki links to the same language is technically possible, but both are labeled with the name of the language – not particularly usable. The fundamental assumption underlying interwiki links is that it is possible to determine when two articles in different languages cover the same topic, so complaining about difficulties with translation misses the point completely. Which is: if two articles cover the same topic, they should be linked to each other, otherwise they shouldn't. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Any project that does not like my little suggestion on how to handle the problem need not follow it. If the reverse situation came up, I should prefer to have multiple wikilinks.
            • If that assumption is meant to sweep away the difficulties of translation, then it is ungrounded. If it is meant to impose the same list of topics on all wikipedias, as appears to be argued here, then it implies another set of would-be Masters of Wikipedia. In either case, weg damit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete – the article topic is too speculative and clearly contrary to WP:CRYSTAL. JamieS93 16:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is clearly a violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Too much assuming and speculation for this article to exist. Killiondude (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Disclosure: I'll be gone for the better portion of this week, but I will be back a few days before this discussion ends. Killiondude (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I dare say that there could be an article where much of this information would validly belong, but this is not it. ClickRick (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL; what else is there to say? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the construction business is way too volatile for this list to be maintainable in any sensible manner. (for example: just one of the proposed buildings has had its planned height changed five times, its location changed three times, and its name changed three times as well). This is a maintenance nightmare waiting to happen which also fails WP:CRYSTAL. Astronaut (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Let's wait till they're built - tallest buildings I can imagine isn't a very encyclopaedic list. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Life happens, which is why we need to stick with the facts and what has already happened. Speculation has its place, but that place isn't here. Eauhomme (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete definite crystal ball.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Eauhomme and Paul McDonald. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have mentioned in this artile that it includes only those supertall skyscrapers, which are currently under construction, and there is reliable source(Emporis) about all these skyscraper, which confirms that they wilol be built.CTBUH have also the same list so plz check it before taking an action.However CTBUH have also mewntioned some of the proposed skyscrapers, but here is have created a separate list for proposed skyscrapers, and i dont think that it violates WP:CRYSTAL. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even so, I don't think everything the CTBUH has on their website needs a Wikipedia article. I feel this hardly passes for Notability, although I'm not much of an expert on that. This might be a bit off topic, but lately you've been creating a lot of articles with loads of information gathered from the CTBUH site (see History of the tallest buildings in the world). --timsdad ^(talk) 10:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, even if all of these are built, how do you know that they will be the tallest buildings in 2020? There may well be other taller buildings built by 2020 that nobody has yet even thought about building (I'm sure it's quite possible for a supertall skyscraper to go from first proposal to completion in under ten years), and it's by no means certain that all of the buildings listed will be completed. At the very least, the article title is wrong, as it is very definitely crystal-balling to say that these will be the tallest buildings in 2020. We already have Proposed tall buildings and structures which is the best place for the information in this article, but without the rankings which are crystal-ballery. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the information on CTBUH, which give us informative facts about skyscrapers then, its article must be created in Wikipedia.

I know that the list i have created is based on speculation, but CTBUH and some other sources suggest this point, that the current situation of Economic crises(which are not going to be stabilize until 2012-2014), no supertall skyscraper(taller than 600 meters) could be built until 2020, see this. and this.

The CTBUH also states that there could be other proposed buildings in coming years, but their status in currently unknown.

However, in my point of view we can change the titile of this article, as it violates WP Policy

Suppose the global economic crises lasts until 2014, then any supertall skyscraper was Approved for its construction which leads to its construction.Construction could begin in 2015, then how it will be completed before 2020 ?? it will take atleast 6-7 years to built(if its height will equivelant to Burj Dubai ot Greater)......

As Burj Dubai has taken almost 6 years but even it is not completed yet.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A cool list that is well-formatted, but it still flunks WP:CRYSTAL youngamerican (wtf?) 12:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete list is based purely on speculation, thus failing WP:CRYSTAL. --Jimbo^[online] 13:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — per WP:CRYSTAL.  Dspradau → talk  16:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pure science fiction. Note that today's featured article is the Rampart Dam. Most of these will never be built. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too much WP:Crystal. Also what is special about 2020, will we also have a list for 2021, 2022 etc. Martin451 (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. However, keep Edward Savage (footballer). Cirt (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cobb (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Footballer fails WP:ATH as he has not played in a fully-professional league/competition yet. Also fail WP:GNG, as there are no secondary sources about the person. --Jimbo^[online] 20:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they too fail the same criteria:

• Edward Savage (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dan Fitchett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom; because they haven't played in a fully-pro league, they fail WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if/when they become notable. GiantSnowman 08:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - not voting, just wanted to say that Savage starred in a soap opera for five years and that should also be taken into account, in case it makes a difference. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Edward Savage - he currently fails WP:ATHLETE but passes WP:ENT due to his appearances in Eastenders and on stage for the Royal National Theatre (source).
  Delete the rest - they fail WP:ATHLETE and there's no indication of general notability. These articles can be easily recreated if and when they make their first appearance at a professional level. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if Savage is kept through passing WP:ENT, should his article be DABed in a different way, say to Edward Savage (actor) (which is already a redirect to the footballer dab) as that's the notability he's being kept by? --Jimbo^[online] 11:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's something to discuss when this AFD ends, if the article survives. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cobb and Fitchett, per the usual, but speedy keep of Edward Savage without prejudice to an individual Afd nomination. It is not reasonable to put his article in the same nomination when he has a quite separate claim to notability, and, given the title of this discussion, it's quite probable that people reviewing AfD discussions who have an interest in actors but not in footballers will have skipped over this one without noticing that there is an actor involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Birla_Institute_of_Technology_and_Science#APOGEE. lifebaka++ 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well formatted, but possible G11 and A7.[6]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Trim and Merge to Birla_Institute_of_Technology_and_Science#APOGEE. The event has received some press coverage, not all available online (Hindustan Times, ToI - New Delhi, don't have significant online archives) - Gnews. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Birla Institute of Technology and Science#Apogee. Salih (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

PA announcer for a couple of low-minor league baseball teams. Practically no sources for this particular Jay Reese--and in any event, I highly doubt an announcer for a low-level minor league team is notable enough for an article. Blueboy96 20:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think this needs to go, It doesnt have any reliable references included and it doesnt exactley pass WP:N. Harlem675 20:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete have to agree. Not notable, poor sources, reads like self-promotion. Need any other reasons? Try another Wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely non-notable........look mom, I have a wikipedia article. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of meeting any notability guidelines. BRMo (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corporal burns park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable playground. There doesn't appear to be a speedy deletion criterion for places. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cant see any reason why this would pass WP:N, Its extremely short and there is no reliable references provided. The user who created the page is very new and probably doesnt understand WP:N yet. Harlem675 20:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge with Cambridge, Massachusetts). No reliable sources, no apparent notability; I can't even prefer the merge to deletion since this seems so non-notable. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable playground. Pity there isn't a speedy for this. Blueboy96 20:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — per nom.  Dspradau → talk  16:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Every city of any size has several playgrounds; often they're no more than a patch of scraggly green little bigger than a house lot. They're all named after SOMEone. While there are numerous sources, they all fail of being significantly about the park - the overwhelming number of them are news notes and calendar entries mentioning the park as a location for an event or Parks & Rec lists of every park and playground in Cambridge - and so fail WP:V.  Ravenswing  21:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:ATH Steve-Ho (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - just to add - fails WP:ATH as has never played a game for either PSG or Liverpool FC (yet) Steve-Ho (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 08:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not meeting notablility requirements. Recreate if he gets a game for 'Pool. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not [yet] notable. --Dweller (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet the inclusion criteria at this time. Can be recreated if he plays for the Liverpool first team in the Premier League, FA Cup, etc. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Opinions for keeping and merging seem to be split so the best place to discuss merging is on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beechcraft Model 40 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable one-off prototype aircraft with no external references. Trevor Marron (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Beechcraft Bonanza 76.66.192.64 (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a reference exists, and it is not a reference from Beech. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One reference, and that is to a book, which we can not generally verify, other than that, nothing. This could even be a hoax for all the evidence we have, no pictures, no web references, nothing. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the reference unverifiable? The book is held in 62 libraries in the United States alone. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it can not be cross referenced as it is only one reference. Several different references are required for verification, otherwise anyone could simply publish something and that would make it an encyclopedic fact. Trevor Marron (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional ref found [7] and added to the article - which appears to be a reliable source. This at least indicates that it exists.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What isn't clear is whether there is adequate non-trivial coverage in WP:RS to justify a stand-alone article rather than discussing in the main Beech Bonanza article. The ref I added doesn't really have Significant enough coverage to justify a stand-alone article, so I am veering towards a Merge to Beechcraft Bonanza.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A hoax, why don't you research your subjects instead of making unsubstantianted and spurious allegations? The plane is real and the article is correct. Just because you can't find a source doesn't mean it doesn't exoist, or is a hoax, as you like to put it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crwesq@gmail.com (talk • contribs) 11:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to me to find anything, the onus on providing verifiable references is on the writer of the article. And if I had considered it a hoax I would have CSDed it as such. If you have references then add them, but even with all the references you add it will still be a one-off prototype not worthy of it's own article. Not now, not ever. Trevor Marron (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the writer of the article did provide a verifiable reference. And we decide what subjects to have articles about based on notability, which is based on coverage in independent reliable sources, not your subjective judgement of "worthiness". And I've just noticed that I started both of the previous sentences with conjunctions. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the aforementioned Beechcraft Bonanza or to the Beechcraft company itself. not notable on its own.--camr ^nag 00:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all aircraft types are notable (Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft))! just a stub that needs more research. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except this is not a type, it is a Bonanza with a modified nose and twin engines, hence a sub-type. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree, consensus is that all aircraft types are inherently notable as per Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft). The article already meets WP:N. The article needs expanding, but that is no reason to delete it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except when it is a sub-type, which this prototype was. In which case it usually does not merit it's own article. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beech Travel Air Model 95 was a converted 1956 G-35 Bonanza, yet it has it's own article--stop being so negative and filled with false pride Trevor!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crwesq@gmail.com (talk • contribs)

WP:NPA plskthnx Plutonium27 (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's not grounds for keeping an article that something similar already exists. please, Crwesq, read WP:INN--camr ^nag 19:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think this should have been nominated for AfD. I think the real debate here is whether this should be retained as a separate article or merged into Beechcraft Bonanza. - Ahunt (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, leaning towards keep. No good argument is supplied why he does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and BLP issues can be dealt with editorially. lifebaka++ 16:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:BIO1E, no true notability and only serves to misinform about the plaintiff and the defendant. Keegan (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article and discussion section of this article are being constantly changed by apparent affiliated persons with the Sheikh, in order to make the victim appear to be culpable. Editors like "ElMazyoona", "Hamisha", and "Venomeve" revert the article to a blog posted on the web by Venomeve, which contains defamatory inforamtion and biased opinion. The entries by Sheikh your-Bouti and Adminchium are factual and contain correct sources for both sides, not a weak "blame the victim" argument with biased defamatory/slanderous opinion. FYI- Wikpedia has made an article review process underway, with IP address search to see if parties are associated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheikh your-Bouti (talk • contribs) 19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No matter what is going on in "real life", this article fails Wikipedia standards for notability for inclusion, IMO. Keegan (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I chose not to delete the discussion made above as I believe in freedom of speech. However if my editing does not please Sheikh your- Bouti, Ademinchium, keegan or any other account user it is certainly not my problem. I am practicing my right to edit any article here based on facts from references. The rubbish about being associated with the Sheikh is a joke and hysterical as the article written is based on the references that are listed below. It seems that Sheikh your-Bouti, Ademinchium could not face reality and instead started a case of their own or maybe apparently it seems that they're affiliated with Mr. Orsi. The other thing mentioned about the blogger.. I believe in freedom of expressing one's opinions whether from a blogger or not.. or do you expect me to be a slave to your own ideas only?? sorry to say I shall not & I shall continue expressing myself free as a bird whether you like it or not. References can be reviewed & information is not a private property of Sheikh- your Bouti, Ademinchium, Keegan or any other user. It is there for people to read, share, discuss & debate freely. I am totally against deleting the page as this shows that information is being controlled by biased, uneducated & prejudice people who like to put info they like otherwise run to close the door & hide. Leave the door open for everyone to put their ideas whether we like them or NOT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmazyoona (talk • contribs) 00:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Classic WP:BIO1E, with a little WP:COATRACK thrown in for good measure. --Versageek 03:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've reported this article to the BLP Noticeboard. --Versageek 14:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It might not be obvious from the article but the subject has a clear claim to notability under WP:ATHLETE as a polo player and club president, having captained a national team and had loads of coverage in reliable sources of his club-presidential role. Most of the discussion above looks like content issues, rather than anything related to keeping or deletion of the article, which should be dealt with on the talk page or via the multifarious dispute resolution procedures that we have (do we have a procedure for resolving differences about which procedure should be used to resolve a difference?). I'm not an expert on Arabic naming conventions, but I get the idea that "bin" means "son of", so two "bins" mean "son of and grandson of", meaning that many references to a person's name won't go that far up the family tree. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator is claiming "one event" status on an article about an individual (1) born into a Royal family; (2) national level athelete; and (3) also the subject of a high-profile lawsuit. This is at least a three event article. So I voice a keep opinion, and call for deprecation of the frequently misused BLP1E clause of BLP. Geo Swan (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No one knew he was an athlete because it wasn't (and isn't) in the article. As Phil mentioned, the layered surnames make a Google search ineffective (I did Google the name that is the subject of the article.).. and before I trimmed the article back, it was an attack piece - scorning the subject and the entire Royal family. Even now, the article is not a balanced biography of the subject. Given the new information, this subject does appear to be notable enough for an article, but as it currently stands, this article isn't it.. --Versageek 00:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That an article is not a "balanced biography of the subject" -- by this I assume you mean it is missing typical biographical elements, like where he studied, and other events from his early life? I suggest the absence of these details should not be considered a reason for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Born as part of a royal family. So what? Athlete part may carry weight. Lawsuit? Not notable. You should assume a bit better faith on my part as the nominator rather that essentially saying that this is "misuse". That the article on a living person is horribly unbalanced is a problem for Wikipedia, it has nothing to do with biographical details. WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:BATTLEGROUND and about eight more acronyms I could toss out there as to why this article is unencyclopedia in nature, tone, and content. Keegan (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am happy to assume you are a good faith contributor.
• I never said the article didn't have problems. But I don't think policy dictates that deletion is the appropriate solution for problems of balance or neutrality.
• Is being a member of a royal family sufficient, all by itself, to justify an article? How many living members of the British Royal Family do we have articles about? My recollection is that of the first forty or fifty royals on the list of heirs over half have articles. And of the second fifty more than a dozen have articles. Presumably the ones who have no articles are utterly without any other notability. Being a royal doesn't establish enough notability all by itself. But I see it as cumulative. So, should we give precedence to the British Royal family, simply because this is the English wikipedia? I don't think so.
• I stand by my assertion that BLP1E is routinely misapplied. A couple of years ago one wiseguy suggested that the Tony Blair article should be merged in the George W. Bush article, on BLP1E grounds, because no one would ever have heard of him if he hadn't supported the Bush war policy. His point, I believe, was that contrary to what many people believe, there is no meaningful objective measure for what should be considered notable, and what should be considered multiple events, as opposed to a single event. Geo Swan (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The sports links seem just about enough that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Nonetheless the WP:UNDUE problems remain, since he seems relatively obscure for anything other than the lawsuit; even the sports links lack detail at the moment, and that probably won't change. Rd232 ^talk 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merely being a member of the royal family doesn't necessarily translate into notability. Just because someone comes from the same gene pool as a monarch doesn't mean much at all - unless said relationship carries with it duties, responsibilities, actions, etc. that are notable. Since there's nothing in the article about his royal pedigree that's more important than the fact that there's a good chance he has the same blood type as the President of the UAE, it doesn't warrant an article. The material about the lawsuit is also not notable (otherwise we'd have millions of articles) and I don't see any notability in his roles in sports associations. -shirulashem^(talk) 19:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Deville (Talk) 20:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Palestine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is apparently modeled after the various "Outline of <Country>" articles. However, it does not actually deal with any specific country. Instead, it is a hodgepodge if information about Palestine (the historical geographic region), the Palestinian National Authority, the State of Palestine, the Palestinian territories, and possibly a few others. It is important to stress that none of these entities is widely considered to be a country (although some of them have some country-like characteristics), and anyway, the fact that the article doesn't even attempt to focus on one of them makes it confusing and unhelpful. The opening paragraphs attempt to handle this problem by providing an overview of the Palestine-related terms mentioned above. However, this is completely redundant given that we already have Palestine (disambiguation) and Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian. I propose either deleting this page (preferred), or renaming it (and modifying its content drastically) to apply to just one of the entities mentioned above (Palestine excluded). -- uriber (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but I agree with your second suggestion, I think it should be moved back into the WP:WPOOK project-space to be worked on to solve your issues Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 20:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I discovered this article about a week ago. I agree it needs more work, but that is not a reason for deletion. Whatever what thinks about the State of Palestine, it is an entity recognized by the United Nations and over 100 countries. Palestine is also represented at the Olympics, in the world of cinema, etc, etc. I think Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian is redundant and OR. Outline of Palestine is not. It could be very useful if it were improved. I plan to be doing that in the days and weeks to come. Tiamut^talk 22:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would also note that Outline of Ireland discusses both the island and the state. Yes, the page is better organized and it is clearer which one is the focus, but its not wrong for a page on a state to reference the wider geographical region in which it is located and where its history took place before its creation. Tiamut^talk 22:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you wouldn't object to renaming this "Outline of the State of Palestine", similarly to Outline of the Republic of Ireland (which "Outline of Ireland" redirects to)? -- uriber (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a discussion for the article talk page. Tiamut^talk 12:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Tiamut^talk 22:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I like the poetic name, anyway. "Master Plan of Pakistan" and "Rough Sketch of Bangladesh" would be good too. Mandsford (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The US has diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority. The Congressional Research Service reports the US has spent over 4 billion in aid on the West Bank and Gaza since 1993 harlan (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how are these facts relevant to this discussion? -- uriber (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment that this outline isn't about any specific country is incorrect. The State of Palestine is an established person of international law. Most countries today have a policy of only recognizing states or countries. They no longer recognize governments at all. see [8] Over 100 countries have legally recognized the State of Palestine. They don't question the conflicting or overlapping legal roles of the PNC, PLO and PNA - and there is no legal requirement for them to do so. They simply carry on business with the local governing bodies of the Palestinian Authority.

The United States legally recognized the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a country in 1997 at the request of the Palestinian Authority. At that time it asked the public to take notice of that fact through announcements it placed in the Federal Register.[9] Many US government agencies, such as USAID West Bank/Gaza, have been tasked with projects in the areas of democracy, governance, resources, and infrastructure. Part of the USAID mission is to "provide flexible and discrete support for implementation of the Quartet Road Map".[10] The Road Map is a internationally backed plan which calls for the progressive development of a viable Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza as the second phase of a three-part final settlement.[11] The EU has announced similar external relations programs with the Palestinian Authority which envision it as a Palestinian state.[12]

The Palestinian Authority has asserted its jurisdiction as a legal state on several occasions already.[13] Many countries recognize the sovereignty of the State of Palestine over the natural resources of its territories. Under international law, Hague IV, sovereignty is not effected by occupation of territory. See for example: [14] The Israeli Supreme Court has acknowledged that Israel's rights as an occupying power are limited to usufruct.[15] In any event Israel announced it was going to withdraw from Gaza and it claims that it no longer occupies that part of the territory. Some states have entered into bilateral diplomatic and trade agreements on the basis of that understanding. In at least one case, the Palestinian Authority signed an agreement with Egypt to construct a pipeline from a gas field on the Gaza coast to El Arish. The PA signed an oil and gas lease with a British-owned company, BG, to develop that offshore field.[16] Egypt and the Arab League countries recognize the State of Palestine. Great Britain has a longstanding diplomatic practice of granting retroactive de jure recognition to other states in order to establish the legal basis for claims filed on behalf of British-owned companies.[17] [18] harlan (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. I also suggest adding this discussion to the list of Israel-related articles for deletion, like the pro-Palestinians like to do with any article that has something to do with Israel which they don't like. I'd do it myself but I don't know how. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Surely the whole point of this article is that it helps readers navigate around the various definitions of Palestine, so it is actually part of the solution to the problem presented by the nominator, rather than part of the problem. Yes, to answer No More Mr Nice Guy, it's true that this is relevant to Israel, because there is plenty of overlap between the territories described as "Israel" and "Palestine" both historically and in present claims, so I'll make the effort to work out how to list this as an Israel-related discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's surely not the whole point of this article. Other "Outline of" articles serve as a list of links about a specific, well-defined entity (e.g. Outline_of_Bulgaria), and do not deal with differing meanings of the term. If this article would be about various definitions, it should not include things like a flag (calling it "Flag of Palestine", where that only applies to a specific "definition" of the term (and hardly the most common one). -- uriber (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, harlan's comments above (and perhaps Tiamut's too) indicate that they, unlike you, view this article as being specifically about the State of Palestine, rather than the other entities I listed. The fact that different editors have radically different perceptions regarding what this article is actually about means that this has little or no chance to become a coherent or useful article int he long run (at least under its current name). -- uriber (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

Since you mentioned my name and ascribed a position to me, I should perhaps explain: I do not view this article as being solely about the State of Palestine. I thought that the Outline of ... articles (based on your explanation in the nom) were restricted to states and was willing to narrow the scope of the article if that were indeed the case. However, given the examples of other Outline articles listed by other editors here which cover a vast array of subjects, its not necessary to confine Outline of Palestine to discussion only of the State. I am very glad for this since my original intent when I discovered the article was to provide liks to all relevant articles dealing with Palestine, both as a state and a region, with a history and people. I'm sad to see that you are not withdrawing your nomination in light of the overwhelmingly negative response to it thus far and in light of the fact that your nom argument is inaccurate given that Outline of articles can in fact deal with subjects other than states. Tiamut^talk 10:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said "outline" articles were restricted to states. I just said that the structure of this specific article was modeled after outline articles concerning states. Palestine is not "both a state and a region". You might as well say it's "a state, a region, and a city in Texas". In fact, these are totally different entities which happen to be called by a similar name. When we have an ambiguous term, it makes sense to have one disambiguation page, and then other pages that deal with each of its meanings. You wouldn't include information about Palestine, Texas here, would you? Just as an example of the confusion that might arise: what exactly is the flag displayed on the top-right corner? Certainly it's not the flag of Palestine (the region), but a naive user will naturally assume it is from just a glance at this article. -- uriber (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the issue as being as clearly different as you do, and neither do many of the sources. The region of Palestine was home to the Arab people who today identify as Palestinian people long before the creation (or non-creation) of the State of Palestine. I agree that the flag should not be at the top of the page if the article is going to cover all aspects of Palestine but I don't share your belief that Palestine and the State of Palestine are as different as Palestine and Palestine, Texas. That's a comparison too far for me at least.

Anyway, all this can be discussed on the article talk page, where it should have been discussed in the first place. Given the emerging consensus here regarding the appropriateness of the existence of the page, would you like to withdraw your nomination? Tiamut^talk 17:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I still believe that this article, under this name, has no place on Wikipedia, I'm not withdrawing the nomination, although I sadly acknowledge that it has no chance of passing, much due to people reacting semi-automatically to different concerns than those I have raised. -- uriber (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. Automatism isn't quite the adjective I would have used given the diversity of opinions and arguments put forward in the keeps. Anyway, to each his own. Tiamut^talk 00:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Personal feelings on the existence of the state of Palestine are irrelevant here, it is a state recognized by a number of countries. And my understanding of the Outline articles is that they are redundant to the articles covered and provide an outline of those topics with links to the main articles. nableezy - 21:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - legitimate list of links and summary. This is not an endorsement of sovereignity or independence. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems in keeping with other topical outlines; regardless of what the status of Palestine is, it's certainly a topic like Outline_of_industrial_organization and Outline of Africa. Last I checked Industrial Organizations hadn't achieved independence yet either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - outlines are being constructed for political divisions of all types. We have them for sovereign states, dependencies, federal states (such as the U.S. States), provinces, etc. Palestine is identified in the outline as a " state with limited recognition". Outlines are also being constructed for any subject that has enough articles about it to justify an outline. See Outline of sharks and Outline of anarchism for a couple examples. There are a lot of articles about Palestine and its people on Wikipedia. Outline of Palestine is a "structured list" of them. See WP:LISTS and WP:OOK. The Transhumanist 02:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nableezy-- penubag  (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. Transhumanist put it well. Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. lifebaka++ 16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jess hates written a handful of notable songs, and won an ASCAP award which is a dime a dozen or worse ("among the most performed" usually means "it charted for more than an eyeblink"). I can't find a single source that gives any form of biographical information. Every single hit on Google/Books/News/etc. is only "This song was written by Jess Cates and [insert writer here]". Simply writing notable songs DOES NOT make you inherently notable if nobody has even mentioned you more than trivially, not even if ASCAP did give you an award, don't try to tell me otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. [Delete. See comment below] WP:COMPOSER provides notability if she "[h]as credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition" or "[h]as written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers." I'm not so sure as you that her ASCAP Award isn't "a major music competition," but we needn't resolve that question to decide this nomination because the other prong provides notability. Several of the songs that (the article claims) she was "credit[ed] for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for" are notable enough to presently have an article at Wikipedia, including Crush (David Archuleta song) and What's Left of Me (song). There may be more, but it's too nauseating an experience to slog through this material unnecessarily, and, given WP:COMPOSER's use of the singular article ("a notable composition"), two should suffice. What we're left with, it seems to me, is notability, and some content issues to be resolved by WP:SOFIXIT.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix it with what? I said five times that I can't find a scrap of info on the guy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 10:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem. Well, this is a pickle. Most of the notability guidelines premise notability on secondary sources, so, in the mine run of cases, if an article's subject is notable then there will inherently be reliable sources on which to drill for content. Some notability guidelines, however, afford notability on primary sources alone. WP:COMPOSER is one of them. That presents a content problem: a subject may be notable, yet there may be little that can be said about them that is verifiable beyond a recitation of the primary sources that make them notable within the limits of WP:PRIMARY. And that, in turn, may transgress WP:NOTDIRECTORY, among other things.

WP:DEL#REASON doesn't restrict the office of AFD to notability problems, so merely establishing notability doesn't save the article; content problems are within our remit here. Candidates for deletion include "[a]rticles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and those "for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." WP:RS says that "articles should be based on reliable secondary sources ... [and] while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources." Cf. WP:PSTS ("articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources"). These policies don't rule out the use of primary sources, and the Cates article can "be attributed to reliable [primary] sources." But they do suggest that an article cannot only rest on primary sources, as Cates' does. With that in mind, we could read WP:DEL#REASON to slip the noose around any article for which all attempts to find at least some reliable secondary sources have failed.

If this article were of more recent coinage, I would suggest that it could be left a while to see what happens. Cf. my remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliet Davis. But a year is more than enough time for sources to be added if they are out there to be found. Given that, and given all the concerns noted above, and given my subscription to m:Deletionism, I am changing my vote to delete. But other editors - those who aren't deletionists - should think carefully about whether they are willing to delete an article about a notable subject on the grounds that it rests only on primary sources, which appear to be the only grounds for deletion.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping other editors read this response carefully. It makes a very, VERY good point about WP:MUSIC and WP:COMPOSER not being set in stone. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a number of sources just now, so the article no longer rests on primary sources alone. When there are multiple brief mentions of him having written notable songs, that's sufficiently significant coverage for an article. Also, I don't buy the "notability is not inherited" argument in cases like these (as has been made at similar AfDs in the past)—I would if the only notability was that the composer had written songs for one and only one artist, in which case any verifiable info could be merged into the article about the other artist. But here, this songwriter is prolific and has written for dozens of notable artists. WP:COMPOSER says we ought to have an article about such a songwriter. If that means the article is mostly a list of their compositions, that's fine for the time being; it's better than deletion in these cases, in my view. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. (Circle gets the square. Now I'll take Wally Cox for the win.) The sources give us no biographical information beyond telling us that Jess wrote these songs. There are thousands of songwriters who get hundreds of cuts yet still get no non-trivial mentions at all. All this article does is say "Jess Cates wrote hundreds of songs, including X which was a hit for Y, Z which was a hit for A, ad nauseam." Do you really think that's enough? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not mean to sound as if I was dismissing your point of view, as I do see the validity of your argument, though we might disagree. That Mr. Cates is mentioned by name in Billboard and in multiple newspapers when those publications discuss his songs and collaborations is an indicator of his notability. (Those publications don't routinely mention songwriters by name in such articles, so my best guess is that it is because of how prolific he is.) It's an indicator, from third-party editorial decisions, that readers may be interested in a short stub with a list of his songs, even if there is not enough sourcing for an FA-quality article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notability isn't the issue. WP:COMPOSER clearly supplies Cates with notability based on verifiable primary sources. The problem is one of content: whether there is sufficient information available about Cates in secondary sources on which to rest the content of an encyclopædic article about him (an article that merely lists the songwriting contributions that provide his notability gets us into WP:NOTDIRECTORY problems). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, let me put this another way. Any system of rules - Wikipedia policy, antitrust law, the U.S. Constitution, etc. - has gaps and holes through which particular issues can fall. In this instance, Cates falls into a gap between various policies: applicable Wikipedia policies (WP:COMPOSER, WP:RS, WP:PSTS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:DEL#REASON) pull in different directions leaving a hole. That's where user discretion comes in, and with it philosophies about construction (as distinct from interpretation). Virtually all wikipedians, I think, would say that when a situation reveals a gap between WP policies, policy ought to be construed in a way resolving the situation in a manner consistent with the five pillars. But that doesn't supply a rule of decision, because the five pillars are underdeterminate in application, see Lawrence Solum, On the Indeterminacy Crisis: Critiquing Critical Dogma, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 462, 473-4 (1987) (distinguishing determinacy, indeterminacy, and underdeterminacy), and users understand them in different ways (deletionists, exclusionists, etc.). Because we can't find usable secondary sources, we're left with a question of user discretion as to how to understand applicable policy and thus what to do with the article. I took the deletionist position above. The thrust of the applicable policies suggests deletion in these circumstances, and deletion of dubious content also serves the five pillars, bringing that construction of policy into harmony with the five pillars). Paul takes the inclusionist position: "If that means the article is mostly a list of their compositions, that's fine for the time being; it's better than deletion in these cases...." Either is justifiable. I offer these observations, as before, to try to help guide other users, because I think these thought processes happen whether expressed or not. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that very helpful elaboration, Simon. One of the suggestions I would have for editing the article, to help reduce the problem of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, is to dig into the many reviews of Cates's many songs and look for those that comment on the actual writing. Here's a start of what I have in mind. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 19:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The discussion (particularly Simon Dodd's, which is well-thought-out but off target) boils down to whether an article about a notable person should be deleted because it has proven difficult to write more than a stub article about the subject based on commonly available sources. I don't know of any Wikipedia policy or guideline calling for deletion of such articles. If the laundry list of songs is deleted, the article is still more informational and better sourced than the great majority of the porn performer articles that I've suffered my way through doing BLP cleanups, and the ASCAP award much more substantial than the awards used to demonstrate notability for such performers. And there are other things out there that can be used to further expand the article. [19] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I note that there is plenty of pseudophilosophical discussion above, but I don't see what any of it has to do with writing an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia article about a songwriter doesn't need to do any more than write about the subject's songwriting. That's the most important information about the subject and the information that encyclopedias since time immemorial have written about people with a particular speciality. Any information about the subject's favourite colour or pet dog's name or inside leg measurement is a bonus - the lack of those facts doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the sources provided in the AfD debate are not sufficient to meet our guidelines. Fram (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gomolo.in (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy deletion because of lack of references to demonstrate notability. The speedy was contested, however, with several users (at the talk page) saying it's like IMDB, and reliable sources can be found. I've sent it to AfD procedurally because it does not appear quite speedyable but I myself haven't taken the time to do a lot of google searching, etc., so hopefully it can be discussed here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 19:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 20:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete my search for sources only found one tangential comment - and that in a blurb from the parent company. No third party sourcing = Fail WP:N = delete. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Couldn't find anything significant about the website. not notable enough. Nadesai (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete just another random website. I think doesn't deserve page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.69.68 (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Gomolo.in is the only one online web source of Bengali Cinema. I have been working on Bengali Cinema and bengali film list. Most of the Bengali film article I added the external link as this website.Please look this third party source-Thanks.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 18:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a source to verify that this is the only site like this for Bengali Cinema (or that it's the "imdb" of Bengali film?). Such a source would definitely be helpful. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can say that it's the "imdb" of Bengali film still fillup all movies of Bengali updated in imdb. The problem is bengali community is so small and Bengali films are not updated in internaet resource. That is lack of our society. Yes citwf.com is also add some bengali films.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 09:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The so called "3rd party source" is not a reliable source reprinting a press release that promotes "research" that promotes the industry medium that the non-reliable source covers. Talk about incestuous! Clearly this is not non-trivial coverage by a reliable source.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear TheRedPenOfDoom why are you comment gomolo.in is not a RS?[20],[21] - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 09:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will respond to those links on your talk page because they have nothing to do with whether or not THIS article should exist. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The question is not whether gomolo.in is a reliable source. The question is whether the other sources backing up its notability are reliable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jayanta Nath, Is that your argument? really?? that some other random website quotes gomolo? User:Rjanag, in absence of any other reliable third party source, please delete the page. Nadesai (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a legitimate website, and it's in English, kinda. It's trying to be the Bollywood IMDB, among other things. I can't understand why it's up for deletion. We should drop this, now. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources, please. Like I suggested above, I am also willing to swing "keep" on this, but only if you and Jayantanth can provide something to verify this claim; several editors have already expressed a doubt about this, and your word alone is unfortunately not enough on Wikipedia. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indiantelevision.com is ok as a source. It has: 51-200 employees [22] engaged in an exhausting list of media enterprises [23], they actively publish and have significant traffic [24], and they have the required editorial process to be a Google publisher [25] meaning that they have the ability to check facts. Unless it can be proved that they don't check facts, they qualify as a reliable source (being incestuous media capitalists notwithstanding). Their article on Gomolo.in is a lot more informative than many trade articles, and the Gomolo.in survey is useful information if one is in a related media business [26]. I'm guessing that other Mumbai trade media have covered Gomolo.in, but it might not be online. If the proponents of the article are really serious, they could contact the Gomolo.in CEO listed in the article and ask for press clipping references from his files. Milo 12:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This website is far far away from Indian IMDb or anything similar. This is a highly commercial website which just intends to spam all the webpages with their own links. Take a look at this page [27] Quiz, Club Members, Contests??!! There are so many similar forums around. Should they all be entertained like this? Nadesai (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't agree. They have tons of information just like IMDB. That other stuff is commercial and for fun. All sites are commercial, and this one is no more so than IMDB. At least they don't clobber you with popups. I'm only in this discussion because I'm in love with Deepika Padukone (like about a billion other guys), and a link to gomolo.in appeared in her article. They have pics of her that are nowhere else, and they have the text of some interviews, to boot. This is no spam scam site. I've written to them, saying They are trying to delete the Wikipedia article about your website over at Wikipedia. They say your site is not notable enough, because there are so few references to you on the Internet. If you could let me know how long your site has been up and provide me with links to independent reviews of your site, I'd present that information to Wikipedia. I know only English and French, but if the only links you have are to sites in Hindi or whatever, then please let me have those, too. I will post their reply here if I get one. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • • I'm gonna stop both of you guys right here, because your back-and-forth is going nowhere. Milkbreath, arguing over how important gomolo is based on your own personal feelings, and no references, is useless, so let's wait until some sources are found. Nadesai, making fun of another editor isn't helping the situation. Both of you are welcome to contribute constructively to this discussion, but please refrain from biting one another; if you have constructive comments to make, please do so below this discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry for the outburst! Please consider this [28] Nadesai (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know what's being stopped, I was going neither back nor forth, and I didn't see anybody make fun of anybody. I'll post any reply I get from Gomolo, as I've already said. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it's the "imdb" of Bengali film" To help address this issue (but not from RS) there is a forum thread at Gomolo.in: "Is gomolo.in the best site on Indian movies?"[29] Several posters seem convinced it is (though the first one (Jul 25) is apparently a promotions employee who sends Gomolo.in Tweets). The last one on the second page (Sep 05) confirms the Hindi - Bengali movie emphasis. The company claims, "gomolo.in has the largest database for Hindi and Bengali movies covering movies from the silent era to new movies under production..." Milo 07:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 10:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No demonstrated notability or reliability. We have a very, very, very low threshold here -- that some other reliable/authoritative websites reference this one -- but it fails that very low threshold. Perhaps in the coming years or months that will change and an article created then, but it fails now. 2005 (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It helps to actually search before drawing conclusions. I've vetted three reliable sources that each covered somewhat different details of the Gomolo.in's June 2009 Movie Viewing Behaviour survey research:

1. TV leads Internet and newspapers in attracting movie goers: Gomolo.in report Indiantelevision.com (RS web publisher described above.)
2. TV trailers drag youth most to a movie: Survey The Hindu News Update Service (RS major newspaper.)
3. TV leads Internet and newspapers in attracting movie goers: Gomolo.in report. MassCoMedia News Details (Mass communications school partnered with Deakin University = RS)

While all three sources covered the same story, it's not a trivial story if one is in a related media business, and many people are. Those media percentage numbers are difficult for small businesses to get for free, and they are always changing.

The AfD issue is notability, and here are multiple, non-trivial WP:RS mentions of Gomolo.in. The survey story itself can be covered in a separate article section.

With "about themselves" info being WP:V/WP:RS ok, use Gomolo.in - About us and Ravisa.in - parent site as references for the company (Ravisa Infomedia) and its product web site (Gomolo.in, the movie info database). Some other reliable source details about the business are also likely to be available from the web. Altogether, this should be a small but satisfactory article. Milo 10:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just FYI, neither of the second two sources are about Gomolo, they're just citing one of Gomolo's surveys. I'm not saying that means we should delete (I haven't decided yet), just pointing that out. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your careful considerations, refreshing at AfDs.

WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."

WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria (WP:GROUP): "...trivial coverage; such as ... meeting times ... extended shopping hours, ... telephone numbers, addresses, and directions..."; "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."; "Evidence of attention by ... national ... media is a strong indication of notability."

Indiantelevision.com contains statements about Gomolo.in's business strategy in the quotation beginning: "A key factor of this exercise was to gain proprietary intellect..., as well as two statements appearing in two independent sources noted below.

MassCoMedia does not contain a unique statement about Gomolo.in, but it seems to qualify as nontrivial, though not substantial: "...Gomolo.in CEO Pritam Roy."; "...Gomolo.in, a social networking portal dedicated to movie enthusiasts."

The Hindu's nontrivial, though not substantial coverage about Gomolo.in reads, "...Gomolo.in Chief Executive Officer Pritam Roy..."; "...Gomolo.in, a movie-related portal which provides information in three languages..." The "three languages" info does not appear elsewhere in multiple independent sources found so far. The Hindu is "India's National Newspaper".

Accordingly, Gomolo.in seems to meet the threshold requirements for notability by nontrivial, multiple independent sources including national coverage. Milo 21:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding the guidelines. Like I said, neither of those last two sources are about Gomolo, and the only "coverage" in those sources is an offhand appositive or two, not true nontrivial coverage. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"neither of those last two sources are about Gomolo" I addressed that issue with a quote from WP:GNG: "Significant coverage ... need not be the main topic of the source material." The sources need not be about Gomolo – only their contained coverage.

"offhand appositive" Typical of compressed news coverage, an appositive is a grammatical construction, used "...to produce shorter descriptive phrases", particularly by eliminating verbs of being such as "is". Appositives are journalistically-valid statements of fact.

In any case, grammatical structures are containers irrelevant to the content they hold. Content is WP coverage as long as "no original research is needed to extract the content" per WP:GNG.

"not true nontrivial coverage" To prove this claim, you will need to cite evidence that these appositely-stated facts about Gomolo.in,

1. "...Gomolo.in, a social networking portal dedicated to movie enthusiasts."
2. "...Gomolo.in Chief Executive Officer Pritam Roy..."
3. "...Gomolo.in, a movie-related portal which provides information in three languages..."

are somehow equivalently as trivial as

WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria's examples of trivial coverage:

1. "meeting times"
2. "extended shopping hours"
3. "telephone numbers"
4. "addresses"
5. "directions"

Where is your evidence for such equivalency? Milo 01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Stating that they must be equivalent doesn't make any sense. The selctive quotes provided actually consist of the entirety of the coverage. That makes the coverage trivial. -- Whpq (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've thoroughly documented, the guiderules state otherwise. Milo 04:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the list of examples of trivia is not the exhaustive list of what constitutes "trivial coverage". -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but items further proposed to be "trivial coverage" must be alike-type matches with intentional exemplars listed; "URLs" would be an alike-type match. Milo 21:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - three news reports covering the same survey issued by Gomolo, and no other soruces actualyl covering the company itself means that notability is not established. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Concerned about lack of significance and breadth in coverage, and no reliable support for the claim that this is the "Bengali IMDB". Note: this is not a duplicate !vote, since when I nominated this it was only a procedural nomination and I didn't state an opinion either way. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While the utility of the site isn't in question, the notability is, and it clearly fails at this point. No prejudice to recreation when it becomes notable. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 07:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"notability ... clearly fails" I've shown above with detailed guide citations, that Gomolo.in just exceeds the notability threshold. Since you apparently don't accept the WP:GROUP consensus guide for notability now, why would you accept it in the future? Milo 08:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above are clear examples of Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you can't answer the question. Milo 21:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly fails [{WP:N]] and WP:WEB. WP:GROUP has nothign to do with this topic, nor does it meet that either. This is an unnotable website that frankly appears to be on a campaign to gain notability by appearing in Wikipedia, rather than appearing in Wikipedia because it is notable. The three little links above, all regurgitation of a press release about a survey the site did, does not meet any requirement for notability. Guidelines are very clear that one can not make itself notable just by releasing a lot of press releases. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:GROUP has nothing to do with this topic" Gomolo.in is reported to have a CEO and a business strategy,[30] which makes it a WP:GROUP for that category of notability.

"press releases" Nearly all business news originates from regurgitated press releases, but notability can't be determined from an unedited release. By comparing them, the texts of all three links have been rewritten and edited from the original press release. Once the press release has been rewritten, it becomes a valid secondary source for notability, since it has been processed by a reliable source editor.

"does not meet any requirement for notability" I carefully applied the guiderules – they are little links that meet all the tests. Gomolo.in just exceeds the required threshold, which I've thoroughly documented above. Milo 21:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEB. Article was speedied deleted twice^[31] under WP:CSD#A7 and twice previously failed to meet Wikipedias inclusion guidelines. Article currently has 2 sources; ravisa.in (owns Gomolo.in) and a link containing trivial coverage. Neither are sufficient to establish notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many articles do not belong here.--Hu12 (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old and irrelevant information. You also state an unconsensed personal opinion as though it were a fact.

The non-self-owned link currently in the article (Indiantelevision.com) has nontrivial but not quite substantial coverage, so by itself it's insufficient for WP:GROUP notability. However, multiple sources that are nontrivial yet not substantial, do pass the notability threshold (see WP:GROUP quote in Milo 21:08).

I found two more nontrivial sources and posted them above. One of them is a national newspaper – a "strong indication of notability" per WP:GROUP (see Milo (21:08). For notability, who notes is more important than what is noted.

Your apparent claim that Indiantelevision.com's coverage is trivial, is a personal opinion (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) not supported by the WP:GROUP consensed guide. According to WP:GROUP's examples, trivial coverage is simple data like phone numbers and addresses. All three of the links contain statements of fact about the subject (posted above) which are not alike-type to the trivial coverage examples of data (see Milo 01:28).

Your last sentence is generalized puffery. Here's my counter-puffery: Significant failure to accept consensed project guidelines indicates a lack of commitment to both the principle of consensus and the policy of WP:CONSENSUS. Persons who do not accept consensus are outsiders not welcome to edit the Wikipedia project. Milo 09:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'll admit I'm a deletionist. I believe that a subject on Wikipedia must be notable before the article is created, and not to create it and then let it develop its notability. It doesn't work that way here. It fails notability standards because it has a feel of being just another one of the thousands of these hybrid system startups (taking something like IMDB and combining it with Facebook.) Why create a Wikipedia article ASAP? Let the business grow and become notable, and THEN come back and create the article. Groink (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems more like a desire for orderly growth rather than deletionism (but I'll describe how it might make you an "inflationist"). It would somewhat challenge the concept of WP:Eventualism by requiring a threshold of creating referenced stubs.

In the present WP unreferenced stub model, deleting articles that ripen to notability after creation hurts third parties. In this case Jayantanth, apparently in good faith, created this article 1 December 2008 about a fairly new business. That business achieved threshold notability per the WP:GROUP guide (see above) June 9-14, 2009.

Deleting it now because it was created too early punishes Gomolo.in, and does not punish the article creator. This unfair practice would open the door to established businesses quickly creating articles (through throwaway paid accounts) in order to tarnish new competitors at WP – which would inflate prices a little for everyone.

Milo 04:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete currently fails WP:GNG, WP:WEB, etc - as documented above. Verbal chat 14:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly FAILS WP:N . Please delete it. I think should've been speedy deleted 122.167.95.254 (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you didn't read the applicable guide, WP:GROUP. Milo 21:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under A7. ... discospinster _talk 21:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No established notability, and unable to locate reliable sources externally to confirm. This should have gone through speedy, but the author repeatedly remove the speedy tag with no reason or improvements to the article. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 19:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus seems to hold that this individual appears sufficiently notable. Sourcing problems do persist; but the general conclusion seems to be that they are solvable by regular editing and that deletion is not the best course of action at this time. ~ mazca ^talk 16:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Biography with no indication of notability to explain how this individual meets the guidelines at WP:PROF. No third-party sources cited. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 19:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Keep if sourced. Apparently distinguished positions, and major administrative influence on his profession, but I think all the likely publication will be in chinese, which I cannot read. DGG (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's any need to bother reading his publications, as those don't indicate notability. If there are other publications that cite his publications and say how important they are, that's a different story. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm unable to follow DGG's reasoning here. Notability certainly has NOT been demonstrated by way of WP:NOTE or WP:PROF and so this person is non-notable and the article should be deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would invite Drawn Some to learn a bit of basic logic. "Notability certainly has NOT been demonstrated" does not imply "this person is non-notable and the article should be deleted": it means that that the subject may or may not be notable, but it has not yet been demonstrated which. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's pretty obvious that everyone so far involved in this discussion is thrashing around in the dark, so we need to get people involved who can evaluate Chinese language sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I can evaluate Chinese language sources, if someone shows them to me. I am not going out of my way looking for them, though, because I have other things to do too, and I'm not going to break my back over this when removing this entry would not really hurt the encyclopedia (if it's 'wrongly' deleted, it could always be re-written as a proper article by someone else later). The problem is that the article creator has not even given a starting point on where to find such sources; all that's really available is Zhang's own CV (sort of), not any external articles or sources. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone has shown some sources, in the section under the title "notes". Have you read those and found that they don't support the claims referenced to them? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've tried to give out more VC information and some external links, but, as he is a living person, there are no other people's work which can show you how important he is. And because his works are all in chinese, there are no English comments which can show you how important his works are.
  I'm a freshman, thank you all for your comments and advices. If there are anything else I can do to end the delection, show me please. Iyawon (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I don't know who he is, and I don't really care either. But since you pointed that out, I would just want to remind you that while he might be important, but this is English (EN) Wikipedia and that's why we need English Refs. Maybe you should start by starting an article in Chinese (CN) Wiki first. Just a suggestion. TheAsianGURU (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't necessarily need English refs. If anyone can find Chinese articles "which can show how important his works are", they would be usable. But without such references this discussion is moot. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Good Point. Rjanag is right, we don't need EN Refs, but I don't even seen a Chinese (CN) Wikipedia article for him and it really puts a damper on any action of saving this article. TheAsianGURU (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First, it's easy to creat a Wiki China article for anybody, but it may be meaningless, because people in China do not need to turn to Wiki China to find who somebody is, and maybe people out China do not either. Second, it's also easy to find Chinese references to make sure that he is notable, please give me some time to find more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyawon (talk • contribs) 07:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment All his book publications are from his own university press, and so far no references have been provided to show why he's notable in his field. Per WP:BURDEN, until such references turn up I am defaulting to delete. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC) oops, forgot that I was the one who posted this AfD...so I shouldn't really be !voting. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note If kept, the article needs to be moved to Zhang Kangzhi (with capitals). I didn't move it originally because I figured it would just mean another redirect to delete after this article is deleted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, it's my fault, I didn't notice the name bug.Iyawon (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are claims in the paragraph starting, "He is considered one of the most originative scholars in China", with verifiable (although not online) sources, that make for clear notability. No reason has been presented here for why this should not be considered to amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as required for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's borderline but many of the problems seem to lie in the quality of the Wikipedia article not in the notability of the subject. See also the Baidu Baike article on him at 张康之 and a Google translation of it here. And, yes, the article should be at Zhang Kangzhi. — AjaxSmack 00:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nigerian expatriate football players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list which is out of date, incomplete, and unrefenced. Category:Nigerian expatriate footballers already exists and provides similar information. Previous AfDs which have resulted in "delete" – one, two, three, four – show that such lists are pointless and listcruft. Note, the previous AfD for this article resulted in a "no consensus." GiantSnowman 18:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wouldn't say pointless listcraft, however lists like this will tend to go on forever and become too long. I think the category on it's own will suffice. Govvy (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per prior consensus on similar articles. To answer the question from the previous AfD; this kind of info is easily accessible using catscan (Nigerians in the Premier League, Serie A, Eredivisie etc). King of the North East 09:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the category will suffice. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this list is redundant to the category, ill maintained and badly-referenced. – Toon 17:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A list and a category are not the same thing, and have different utility to users. I am not sure comments like "category will suffice" are adequate to support deletion. Rlendog (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to comply with the notability guideline. Those arguing to keep unfortunately do not address this primary reason for deletion - simply being well known in puzzle circles does not make for a verifiable and appropriate encyclopedia article in itself. ~ mazca ^talk 16:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not fair there was no consensus for delete and please don't use 'notability' as a rule for censorship ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.38.142.245 (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod expired last year after being multiply endorsed and article was deleted. Article was restored because someone complained. No notability is established for this software. Needs multiple instances of independent, reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage demonstrating enough notability for an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have many of these games, I very much appreciate Tatham's work in making them and in making them available, and I have to concur. Delete. DS 19:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I am also a big fan of the software that Tatham has written but there is no way that this satisfies WP:N. There are no sources (save the actual website) and I do not see enough comping in to satisfy WP:RS. meshach (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or merge with the author article). I was the first contributor of the article ( so called 'creator' but in fact it was just few lines about it ). DreamGuy tagged it for advertisement first ( see history ) and the link from Simon Tatham self article was removed also. This sub-article was made to help readers not for spamming. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. It is part of Unix and Debian [32]... "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability... just use your favorite search engine ... Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. It is popular on many platforms....I'm am not linked to the author... some others say it is a genius ^^. I just think about subculture and i mean little articles like this about (minor) things is what could make wikipedia stronger but if you want just throw it away! I don't care really just going back to anon Bye +2P(eace) ;-) --Neuromancien (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless external references can be found. I'm a puzzle guy and a programmer and I've never heard of it (not alone a reason, I know). It appears to be a good collection but not groundbreaking. I also question Simon Tatham's article. If every programmer who released open source software had a page on Wikipedia, we'd have millions of programmer pages. What makes him notable? Not being a Unix or Linux user, I've never heard of Tatham's Netwide Assembler. Is it really widely known? And PuTTY seems to be an one of many terminal emulators for Windows -- and this one's only in beta. RoyLeban (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well known in open source and handheld puzzling circles. When looking for media sources, don't forget to include coverage of the OS X iPhone version under the name PuzzleManiak. Here's an example review [33]. I'm sure I've also seen coverage of individual puzzles which doesn't include the phrase "Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection", so these may also slip under the google-radar. --Linton (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, G12 (obvious copyright violation). Blueboy96 20:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Poorly written article. No references, and the article claims he is still alive, while I can find no reference to support that. I believe the info was copied from here, so it would be in vio of WP:Copyright. Fails WP:BIO. Onopearls ^(t/c) 17:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as copyvio. The original version is almost a word for word copy from the site pointed out by the nominator. Jafeluv (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ski Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines for WP:ORG Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I'm not exactly a fan of these sort of articles, it does meet WP:CLUB, as "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale" (since then has outreached to areas within and beyond the United States). In addition, it does have third-party sources (see references section). Cheers, I'^mperator 19:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia guidelines of notability for an ORG state the following
  

"Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. This article meets both these criteria. Artemis84 (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not enough Context to determine what this article is really about. Gnews search and google search do not show many results. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless someone can provide some more information to prove notability. Or at least properly explain the subject. ("In October 2002, it operated more than 30,000 cards"???) -- llywrch (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not have reliable independent seccondary sources. Probably spam. Algébrico (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus seems to be that this information is worth keeping, in some form at least. Good arguments have been made for various merges, but there is no consensus as to any particular destination or plan. Further discussion on this topic can be undertaken at the talk page; but as far as this AfD goes there is certainly no consensus for deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 16:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bokurano robots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an extremely trivial list of plot details. Each robot, with the exception of the main one, only appears for a very brief time. Individually, they mean nothing to the story, so there is no need for a list of them. TTN (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : It can be merged to the main article.--SkyWalker (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : The provided references are verifiable and reliable. Rirunmot (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appropriate spin-off article & a good compromise rather than the horror of doing them individually. The only way to deal with this is by compromise. Probably edit a little, but that's not for AfD. DGG (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What I'd like to see is that this information be incorporated piecemeal into the volume summaries of List of Bokurano chapters, but not only doesn't that list exist yet, there isn't enough information in the main article to spin out into one -- as there is hardly any manga publication information at all. Which makes that a no-go. As a list of fictional objects, I can't say the notability of the set has been well-established: I've yet to see critical commentary on the robots in themselves (or even forum posts geeking out about them), only about the characters. Contra the nominator, however, they do not mean "nothing" to the story, as each pilot needs to figure out how to deal with the robot he/she battles, which as often as not requires come cleverness on their part. So: merge back into the Bokurano, where yes they will be a bit lumpy, but as demonstrated by the lack of manga information, this is not exactly a high quality article in the first place. (I fully expect that, once the licensed manga starts being published in North America, article development will head in the right direction.) —Quasirandom (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been pointed out to me that the chapter list is at List of Bokurano: Ours chapters. I've added a, like, yanno, link to this from the main article. Withholding for the moment whether this should be the proper targe, as I think about it. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone should probably change the name of that article or the main article so the series titles match. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The main article needs to change, in light of the relatively recent announcement of the licensed title. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some thought (and work at cleaning up Bokurano: Ours) I've concluded my original idea was best: merge into the main article in the Dimensional robots section, converting it to a bullet or definition list as we do so. (Also, add the last couple robots, so we have all sixteen.) Yes, this makes the article a bit lumpy with plot, but the main article is rated Start Class for a reason, so it won't badly damage it there. Eventually, when List of Bokurano: Ours chapters has volume summaries, the list will be redundant and can be removed, but until that day, it should be preserved per policy. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Mergeto List of Bokurano characters 76.66.192.64 (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a pretty solid character list, though it needs more references. Merging to the chapter list wouldn't really work too well and merging to the character list just seems like a pointless exercise in making that article even more obnoxiously long.- Norse Am Legend (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bokurano: Ours, otherwise delete. From what I can gather of the list, these are "monsters of the day" that usually don't have an impact on the story beyond being something for the protagonists to overcome or defeat. This is always treated better in a chapter or episode list. --Farix (Talk) 22:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite monsters of the day: the robots in all are, as a sum, the primary antagonists, and the main storyline is how each of the fifteen pilots battles a different robot. That said, I agree they are better handled as part of a comprehensive summary of the series rather than split out. My problem is, the article suite has not developed enough to have such a comprehensive summary where this material readily fits in. And yes, I am trying to follow policy and preserve information that will ulitmately be needed in a different form. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article as it fail both notability & excess of plot. Salvage what content is worth saving, i'm willing to have that content on my user page. Redirect to Bokurano: Ours to discourage any attempt of recreation. --KrebMarkt 15:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list is fine, nothing gained by destroying it. Good to have this in its own article, instead of making the main article too long. Dream Focus 15:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C.A.Milson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable author; autobiography spam from a COI editor. No evidence that he nor any of his books are notable. (Endorsed prod removed by creator of the page) Triplestop x3 15:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:AUTHOR. -Falcon8765 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable self-pub author lacking non-trivial coverage in WP:RS's. Smells of self-promotion. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable. 5000 copy print run is miniscule. Maybe in the future this startup will be notable, but it isn't now, and it will take a lot of money to make it so. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=38119 this] looks like substantial, independent coverage to me. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Net Daily is not a reliable source. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Where was that determined? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. http://www.salvomag.com/new/audio.php lists a goodly amount of coverage, including by a number of groups we have articles on, WDLM-FM, Discovery Institute, Point of View (radio show). Here's one not listed there, Orthodoxy Today print interview. An editor is Rebecca Hagelin, whom we also have an article on.[34] Writers for it include Herbert London,[35] Casey Luskin, [36], Caroline Crocker[37] all of whom we also have articles on. Its articles are reprinted in Independent Women's Forum.[38] Of course "we have an article on them" isn't the same as "they are a reliable source", and no one of these sources is the Washington Post ... but there are a lot of them. All considered together, it's enough for Notability. --GRuban (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Google News brings up a number of hits, but nothing I could add to the article to prove notability. GRuban's argument is what tips me over from weak delete to weak keep. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, also note that AFD created by banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ebenezer Place, Wick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Merge or delete per below. Oxicleanfanatic (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the Wick, Highland article. This should not be a standalone article or just deleted. Why? Because there's nothing to expand on and nothing more to say about it that isn't said in the Wick, Highland article. All it really is, is a door that's an entrance to a hotel restaurant. Not worthy of its own article.--Oxicleanfanatic (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]