Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 6

< 5 May	7 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal music in El Salvador

Article was created by a single-purpose account whose only contribution to wikipedia was to promote heavy metal bands from El Salvador. The only references in this article are to blogs and other non-reliable sites like the Metal Archives, through which the article boasts that the country has 59 bands. Just to keep things in perspective, countries with smaller population include Norway with over 1,000 bands and Finland with over 2,000 bands. Outside Europe, countries like New Zealand and Singapore also boast a larger number of metal bands (175 each, according to the same unreliable source) despite a smaller population to El Salvador. Need I say more? Article is clearly about a non-notable subject. Bardin (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Bardin (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 13:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Music of El Salvador. The heavy metal scene in El Salvador may not require its own article, but some of the information here can be placed in the existing article on the country's music heritage. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge what exactly? It's all original research supported by unreliable sources. None of the bands mentioned are even notable enough for an article on wikipedia. --Bardin (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator: this is OR, the sources are not reliable and the article is full of weasel words and random factoids. I don't think there is anything to merge, and this is an unlikely search term. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pastor Theo. Even if not sourced, it is verifiable information that can be done later. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure there's verifiable information in the article? Have you tried searching for reliable sources to verify anything in the article because I have and I found nothing. --Bardin (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. There's nothing to merge after all the non-reliable references are removed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original nonsense. Nothing to merge. --Anarchodin (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as this is no original research, fantasy or non-notable information. It's part of a country's heritage and culture. The argument used by Bardin is not valid because he is comparing highly developed countries with one of the latin-american countries with the lowest HDI. --Crimson33 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- 60 non-notable bands do not make part of some country's heritage and culture. If that were so, there would be reliable sources in newspapers and books about heavy metal music in El Salvador but no, the article only have sources to unreliable sites like the metal archives and blogs. Most of those bands do not even have any album out. This is not a vote, your argument amounts to nothing more that "I Like It". --Anarchodin (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, YobMod 14:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Google books has quite a few hits, for example in Zentralamerika heute Von Sabine Kurtenbach i find:" Many Spannish groups began the boom in Rock in the spanish language, known as Guanarock in El Salvador....Now Heavy metal, Trash and black metal have become popular in these lands, as interpreted by the bands Renegado and Tabu. In 1989, rock-fans organised a concert for peace for a youth the was sick of war." Kinder im Abseits Kindheit und Jugend in fremden Kulturen Kindheiten Von Manfred Liebel has "Music preferences cover a wide spectrum, from spanish-language melancholic music, to English language Rock, particularly Rap/Hiphop, Heavy metal and Punk...Since 1992, 8,000 El-Salvadorans atend the Annual Peace-fest.

No idea why sources appear in German, but I suspect other language (eg spanish) searches would also find enough sources to find at least enough for a section.Yob Mod 14:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you would think any of those sources are relevant to this article's subject. None of those sources are about El Salvador or even heavy metal. One can find many results through a google book search by coupling two random words together like metal and a country's name. --Bardin (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments by nominator I want to emphasize that the article is filled with nothing more than original research and that it is unlikely to ever be more than that. There are 11 citations at present. Three of them are to the metal-archives.com; two of them are to metalcritico.com; one of them is to spirit-of-metal.com; and another one is to resistenciamusical.com. All four are unreliable sites that rely on content are submitted by their users. Two other sites are to blogs (obolog.com and blogspot.com); one is to myspace; and another is to a fanpage on geocities. One citation is to some kind of forum that I cannot view without signing in. In response to Crimson33, El Salvador is actually in the middle range of HDI according to this list. Countries with lower HDI to El Salvador includes Indonesia (280 bands), South Africa (101 bands), Bolivia (105 bands), Philippines (119 bands), etc. There is nothing remarkable or extraordinary about El Salvador having 62 heavy metal bands, none of whom are even notable for an article on wikipedia. I went through each and every band entry on the metal-archive site: 30 of those bands have not released anything more than demos. 6 have managed to release an EP but have yet to release a studio album. 22 bands have only released one studio albums. 1 of those 22 bands (Vertigo) have also released a live album. 3 bands (Dreamlore, Kabak, Kabala) have released 2 studio albums. Only 1 band (Raices Torcidas) has released 3 studio albums. That's it. The grand total number of studio album released by heavy metal bands in El Salvador is 31. How anyone can possibly think that a heavy metal scene that has produced only 31 albums up to now is a notable subject is quite beyond me. It is not even notable enough for an entry in the Music of El Salvador. Do you think the music industry in El Salvador pays much attention to a genre that has only produced 31 albums up to now? More important than anything else though is the sheer absence of a single source that even treats as heavy metal music in El Salvador as a notable subject. Not even a passing mention, let alone a discussion. The subject is simply not notable to have a presence anywhere on wikipedia. --Bardin (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also in Nicaragua & El Salvador Von Paige R. Penland, i find "The music scene in El Salvador is thriving....Heavy metal and Funk are styles embraced and developed by younger Salvadoran musicians. Multiple general reference books mentioning that El Salvador has a thriving Heavy metal scene does indeed convince me that deletion would be a mistake. Note, i don't read Spanish, and there are likely many more such sources in the language of the land.Yob Mod 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that you are doing is proving the existence of heavy metal music in El Salvador, something that is not in dispute. Heavy metal is a global phenomenon and can be found in many countries around the world. There is nothing remarkable about heavy metal music being heard in El Salvador, a country that has only produced 62 bands with 31 studio albums among them. Many other similar sentences to your example can be found for other countries, eg. Mongols now have access to a variety of culture ... While some express a pride in their old instruments, songs, and beliefs, others are dripping the ends of their curly-toed boots into new performance arts, including heavy metal, rock and "world" music. here; An Egyptian teen's preference may range from popular to heavy metal. here; Bangladeshi band music was the precursor to modern Bangladeshi rock and metal music. here; etc. There is no source indicating anything notable about heavy metal music in El Salvador. --Bardin (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, i am showing that general books about the region specifically mention Heavy metal being socially relevant in El Salvador, more than the vast majority of other music generes. Another: Seeing Indians Von Virginia Tilley has "the country (El Salvador) was simultaneously saturated with American pop, rap and heavy metal....The older Generation frequently complained that rock...were eroding traditional social values and leading to gang violence". Multiple general reference books mentioning that El Salvador has a thriving Heavy metal scene, and that its scene has a social impact does indeed convince me that deletion would be a mistake. Note, i don't read Spanish, and there are likely many more such sources in the language of the land.Yob Mod 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted wrongly. It's "American pop, rap, heavy metal and other music." It is also American heavy metal that this source describes El Salvador as being saturated with. No mention of an El Salvadorean heavy metal scene at all, let alone a "thriving one". --Bardin (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Would anyone mind if we asked some of the El Salvadoran wikipedians if they can do quick search? A spanish-reading editor saying there are no reliable sources would be convincing i think, but i don't want it to look like canvassing (eg. if people think that editors from the country would be biased to keeping), but the wikiproject is dead.Yob Mod 16:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, ask away. You can also raise the issue at the wikiproject metal talk page too. When the heavy metal scene of a country consists of just 62 bands with only 31 studio albums among them, I doubt that there would be any reliable source about it in any language. --Bardin (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Please stop relisting this. It seems that it's an attempt to force a deletion. If no input has been given in the original 7-day window, it should be closed as keep by default. Lugnuts (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing wrong with relisting an article to find consensus where there is none. This is not the only AFD that has been relisted more than once. Yes, an absence of consensus should result in keep by default though it would be a peculiar thing indeed if an article is kept when not a single person in the AFD has actually supported that. That said, I do believe a "no consensus - default to keep" would have be a more accurate closing decision than "merge". --Bardin (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Menon

Disputed speedy. Consists of one whole sentence and an infobox, doesn't assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How on Earth this was denied a speedy????? Fails to establish notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of notability, abc news, express india, The Hindu, etc. Chzz ► 01:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this meets WP:N per Chzz. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:N. Enough sources for expanding the article. Salih (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Googling "Lakshmi Menon" results in 65,400 hits. I see her mentioned in many news sources. Before nominating someone for deletion, please spend a few seconds Googling. Dream Focus 02:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just reading this makes her notability obvious. Fences and windows (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources. Perhaps editors could try looking for sources before nominating and voting delete? Btw, she's on the cover of Vogue India this month. Fences and windows (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family Leader Foundation

Filing an amicus curiae brief does not make an organization notable. After comprehensive review of the Google hits generated and the all-dates Google news archive hits generated, I was unable to find any coverage of the organization itself in independent sources, and not even any significant coverage of the amicus brief (only mentions that it exists).

Ample opportunity has been given for editors to add sources; the above searches suggest that no amount of effort to do so will bear fruit. Bongo matic 23:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm afraid you're right. When I started the article, I was thinking the organization would turn out to have a little more notability, or at least notoriety. Probably a bad guess. Agathman (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 01:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 01:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources covering the organisation. Brief mentions don't count. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mom-and-pop organization, fails WP:ORG. WWGB (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Padres FC

Unreferenced stub on a non notable football club. Google search throws up a load of irrelevant information, something in Cantonese and the official website. Nothing even resembling WP:RS, thus, seemingly, no hope of the article being expanded. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin Dragons SC HJMitchell You rang? 23:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Football Federation Northern Territory. Individual team articles about what is, essentially, a minor league, are not merited. Mandsford (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest dealing with all the clubs of the Football Federation Northern Territory as a group. It is the highest level of football in the Northern Territory, a first level subdivision of Australia and the clubs in its sister organisations Football Federation Victoria, Football NSW etc. are generally considered notable. Of course this does not mean that reliable sources can be found. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 05:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Mattinbgn\^talk 05:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the team seems to just about meet notability. Giant Snowman 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the top level of a state in Australia seems to indicate club notability. Additionally, it is important to not fall into the trap and assume that all sources are online. Newspaper archival research can surely come up with some stuff. matt91486 (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The club plays in the top league of its state. For me, thats notable! John Sloan @ 19:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a state, a territory with 150,000 people in a sport that is not that popular. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delete No references at all to establish notability and it is unlikely that a non-professional sports team like this would receive the level of coverage needed to meet WP:ORG. The above keep comments appear to be WP:ILIKEIT as they don't demonstrate that any references actually exist, let alone enough to constitute 'significant coverage' as required by the notability guidelines. Nick-D (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, id never heard of this team until yesterday (since i'm from the UK). So I could analise this from a completely neutral point of view. I'm pretty sure the other keeps here are much the same! John Sloan @ 09:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems quite consistent with other teams that are around. Nfitz (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously I have a stake in keeping the articles as the creator -- but unlike a recent discussion over the merit of keeping Whittlesea United, I definitely believe these team pages have a place on Wikipedia. They are clubs from the league behind the A-League in Australia. I've been pretty busy, so haven't had the time to spend on sources, but a quick Google News search finds this and this and this. Australian Matt (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd just apply some caution re "the league behind the A-league" claim. While this is technically correct, by any reasonable measure the standard of this competition would be a long way behind the other state leagues in Australia. As a yardstick, I'd suggest that no players have gone straight from the NT league directly into the A-league whereas there would be many examples from say the Victorian Premier League. Murtoa (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Palmerston FC player Alistair Evans has trained with the Queensland Roar (now Brisbane Roar) youth side. Rhian Davies is a W-League player from the Northern Territory. The others that come to mind from Darwin are Hamilton Thorp (Perth Glory) and John Tambouras (New Zealand Knights). Australian Matt (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete completely non-notable. A small amateur weekend club in a city of 120,000 people in a country where soccer is not one of the leading competitive sports. #2 Soccer's elite player base is built around continental European immigrants like Italians, Greeks, Balkans, etc, and Darwin doesn't have many immigrants from those parts; immigrants mostly go to big cities. There are eight teams in the city, so on avg 15,000 people per team. Not notable. Just on another note, Salisbury United is a team in my area, in the second division of suburban soccer. They should be deleted as well. When I was a kid I saw them draw 3-3 against a ragtag "Vietnam United" team from the area. They are no better than a team from a sporty high school. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the comment about the 7/8th division in England etc, I looked up eg, Harrogate in UK; 160,000 people, and they have two clubs, one in 6th tier and another in 8th tier, but at least both have stadiums about 3,000 with 500 odd seats and are semi-pro. In Australia, 3rd tier soccer teams play in paddocks with no seats, no money etc. Entrance is free, at least the Vietnam Utd v Salisbury Utd one was (at a paddock with no fence/gate). YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRT Nfitz, from English football league system, it appears that only the top 8 tiers in the UK have a regular full season. When I went to 9 and below I couldn't see any bluelinks to any teams. Well the 8th tier teams at least have a stadium. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as ChrisTheDude noted in the similar deletion discussion here, every team in the UK plays a full, regular season. And tiers below the A-League do indeed charge prices for admission - see the Victorian system example here. The NT News is a reliable source and it has now been added to the article. Australian Matt (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Dragons SC

Unreferenced stub on an apparently non notable football club. A google search throws up a few lists of clubs in the area and a few stats sites but nothing that would come close to WP:RS. There seems little hope of any more information being found to add to the article though, by all means, prove me wrong. HJMitchell You rang? 23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Padres FC HJMitchell You rang? 23:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the NT Premier League would appear to be the top level of competition in the Northern Territory. Whether that makes teams at that level notable is another matter. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete A Google news search of 'Darwin Dragons soccer' doesn't return any usable references ([1]) and this is a non-professional team so WP:ORG isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Football Federation Northern Territory. The premier minor league in one section of the country would probably be considered notable, but the individual teams would have to prove some type of notability that sets them apart from other clubs. Mandsford (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are 8 teams in this league (Football Federation Northern Territory#2009 Premier League Teams). Why are their Wikipedia articles being picked off individually? WWGB (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 05:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Mattinbgn\^talk 05:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep. As I understand it, this team plays at what is effectively Level 3 in the Aussie league system. A team's professional status is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to notability (for example, there are hundreds of semi-pro and amateur teams in England with Wiki articles, some of which are of Featured Article standard), and seeing as there is no national cup competition to give us an easy guide to establishing notability (as there is in England), I see no reason why article for teams at this level should be deleted simply because of their level. The way I see it, this team are no less notable than a Wessex League team. Unfortunately, in order to improve this article we have to rely on news sources, and as Nick-D says there's precious little to use. I found one story about them receiving a grant, four Google News hits and a few more local news hits (search for "Darwin Dragons" -rugby) but that's about it. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I might be miss-understanding your comment a bit, but there is a national professional soccer/football competition in Australia - the A-League. This team isn't in it. Nick-D (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So by that logic all non-league semi-professional English teams (most of which have articles on here) should also be deleted!? Or would you go as far as deleting all teams that don't play in the Premier League? John Sloan @ 09:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No; only teams for which sufficient references aren't available to meet the requirements set by WP:ORG like this one. 'Other stuff exists' isn't a reason to keep articles by the way. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS clearly doesn't apply here because my reasoning for keeping the article is based on my belief that the subject is notable. See below ;) John Sloan @ 17:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not that it will make a difference, but just to clarify - they would technically be playing in a Level 2 league, with each top state league coming directly under the National A-League competition. I'm undecided on keeping the article or not, but leaning toward keep. I'll have a look around for some sources and come back. Camw (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bettia. Giant Snowman 13:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bettia as well. matt91486 (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The club plays in the top league of its state. I consider that notable. John Sloan @ 19:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a non-professional team, in a sport which isn't the most popular in this country, in a territory so small in population that I'm not sure teams in its stage leagues in any sport would be notable (and I'm a staunch inclusionist), since they're going to be tiny non-professional teams, and thus are not going to have the reliable sources to make the article. This is a case where trying to judge it by, say, English standards, just doesn't make any sense. Rebecca (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets standard at which teams have been kept in the past. Nfitz (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it meet the standard at all, let alone easily? As I said above, I'm a particularly ardent inclusionist - and I'm not seeing notability at all. It's a local, non-professional team on which nothing useful could be said because the references aren't there; that the particular area the league represents happens to have its own parliament is neither here nor there. Rebecca (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is this different that the local non-professional teams in the 12th level of English football that we consider acceptable (or is it the 10th level ...) Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously I have a stake in keeping the articles as the creator -- but unlike a recent discussion over the merit of keeping Whittlesea United, I definitely believe these team pages have a place on Wikipedia. They are clubs from the league behind the A-League in Australia. I've been pretty busy, so haven't had the time to spend on sources, but a quick Google News search finds this and this and this. Australian Matt (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying "the league behind the A-League" is misleading. There is a massive difference in notability between the two levels, and where there might be a case for including one from, say, the NSW state league, the tiny Northern Territory market is a different story entirely. The writeups you linked above are just the same sort that the Canberra Times used to run on university sport when I was there - should we have article on those teams too? Rebecca (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes - we should definitely have an article on University teams if they can be verified with good sources and deemed as notable. This team has its notability lie in its position as being in the top NT tier and the second tier behind the A-League. The Sunday Territorian meets WP:RS criteria. For the record - have a look at Melbourne University Rangers. Australian Matt (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Melbourne University Rangers appears a very poor example - a club that has had its entire and relatively short existence in lower amateur ranks and in my view is simply not notable. Some uni clubs may be notable due to their longevity and in some cases where they have participated (earlier in their history) at higher levels. A relevant example (in another code) would be Melbourne University Football Club. Murtoa (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Aussie Rules club is a better example - although the Rangers are now out of the provisional leagues. Australian Matt (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems the issue of whether or not the team is professional is irrelevant. I'm not in the habit of weighing in on AfDs I started- I make my opinion clear in the nomination and let the community decide its fate. However, I felt it necessary to point out my reasons, since there seems to have been a lot of focus on the professional issue. Having searched Google, I could not find any reliable, third party sources that dealt with the subject of the article in detail- as required by WP:RS and WP:N. From what I see above, there are still no such sources that deal in detail with the club- as opposed to a particular player or the league as a whole. I consider myself an inclusionist so invite people to prove me wrong! HJMitchell You rang? 15:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content added I have added a reliable third party source, the Northern Territory News, that deals with the subject of the article as required by WP:RS. This deals in detail with the club, and also gives history -- the NT News article noted that the Darwin Dragons rejoined the NT Premier League in 2007. Australian Matt (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete completely non-notable. A small amateur weekend club in a city of 120,000 people in a country where soccer is not one of the leading competitive sports. #2 Soccer's elite player base is built around continental European immigrants like Italians, Greeks, Balkans, etc, and Darwin doesn't have many immigrants from those parts; immigrants mostly go to big cities. There are eight teams in the city, so on avg 15,000 people per team. Not notable. Just on another note, Salisbury United is a team in my area, in the second division of suburban soccer. They should be deleted as well. When I was a kid I saw them draw 3-3 against a ragtag "Vietnam United" team from the area. They are no better than a team from a sporty high school. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the comment about the 7/8th division in England etc, I looked up eg, Harrogate in UK; 160,000 people, and they have two clubs, one in 6th tier and another in 8th tier, but at least both have stadiums about 3,000 with 500 odd seats and are semi-pro. In Australia, 3rd tier soccer teams play in paddocks with no seats, no money etc. Entrance is free, at least the Vietnam Utd v Salisbury Utd one was (at a paddock with no fence/gate). YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRT Nfitz, from English football league system, it appears that only the top 8 tiers in the UK have a regular full season. When I went to 9 and below I couldn't see any bluelinks to any teams. Well the 8th tier teams at least have a stadium. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it isn't really relevant to this discussion, what do you mean by "only the top 8 tiers in the UK have a regular full season". Every team in a league in the UK plays a "regular full season", eg here is the current (a few games left to play) league table (what I believe in Australia you call a "ladder") for the Essex Olympian League, which is level 11. And there are plenty of articles on teams at level 9 and below, see for example Midland Football Alliance, which is level 9 and has articles on every member club. Like I said, not really relevant to this discussion but just correcting a couple of misconceptions........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage this comment thread on the "elite player base" that a football article apparently requires for notability and simply state that I have added a reliable third party source establishing the club is notable for its presence in the Northern Territory Premier League, a League that has merited coverage in the Northern Territory News. Australian Matt (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace (talker)

This article cites no sources, and I can't find any third party sources (everything on a google news search seems related to a football team, not the talker). Without them, this doesn't meet WP:N/WP:WEB. In other words, if we actually wrote this article properly, by summarizing sources rather than writing our own opinions, there'd apparently be nothing to write. The first AFD was 3+ years ago, before modern notability guidelines existed. The second AFD was recently, but no one participated... which for some reason resulted in a no-consensus close... despite there being utterly no reason given to keep the article. Chiliad22 (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have made exactly the same experience: I found no sources at all other than the website crystalpalace.talker.com, which doesn't even have any usable information. The article has had a tag asking for references for half a year now, the talk page has been inactive since 2006. It doesn't look as if there is anything salvageable here. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. Talkers predate the WWW where most sourcing is found. It was probably well known in its day and you would most probably find a lot of buzz about it in Usenet archives but that's not good enough for our current notability guidelines. Score one for the FUTON demon. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there is material in those archives it is good enough for the purpose. (I assume from Ron's comment that there are--I have not investigated) We need to adopt our view of what sources count as reliable to those appropriate to the subject. (Obviously one would not use such sources if there were better.) DGG (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What I should have said was that if there was any kind of sourcing at all, it would be in Usenet archives or old mailing lists archives which would be true for any Internet related subject that predates the world wide web like talkers. I also agree with you, I think such subjects should be included if someone could demonstrate that they are "notable" (by the ordinary definition, not ours) by using such sources. However, the current guidelines say otherwise. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The current guidelines are right to do so. Anyone can write anything at all on Usenet, including forging posts in other people's names — a practice that is in no way a recent invention, as you know. Presuming that there is such material on Usenet (which can be brought up with Google Groups, by the way), how do you know (a) that it was actually written by the person named in the "From:" or "Sender:" fields, (b) who that person is, and (c) what that person's reputation for fact checking and accuracy is?
    Here's a example that might drive the point home: Put your name, "Ron Ritzman", into Google Groups, and the second thing that comes up is a post saying that Ron Ritzman is a troll. The first thing that comes up is a post saying that Ron Ritzman "flunked out of clown school". Would you accept this as reliable sourcing for a Ron Ritzman article? No, you wouldn't. And the reason there is the same reason as everywhere else. The people making those posts did not have factual accuracy as their goal, and even though they didn't use pseudonyms, there's no reason to believe that they are who they claimed to be. They are not identifiable, they have no discernable reputations for fact checking and accuracy, and even if they had they have no motivation to uphold those reputations when posting to Usenet.
    You want to counter FUTON bias? Look to published books and papers. If they don't exist, regret that no historians decided to document this particular piece of history, not that an encyclopaedia aims for accuracy and requires that historians have done so, and done so properly such that their writings can be authenticated and their credentials/expertise known.
    Usenet is "text on the 'net", by the way. Rejecting Usenet postings in favour of proper sourcing is not an example of FUTON bias. Uncle G (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So we should keep an article because someone said there might be information on the Usenet archive, but you didn't check? That just seems very irresponsible all around. Anyone could post anything to Usenet... and you're not even sure anyone did that much. This "there might be information on Usenet" defense could justify an article on literally anything. I hope the closing admin will note DGG's keep comment was contingent on that information being found in Usenet archives... but even then, Usenet posts are about as unreliable as you can get. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the topic may not lend itself to citation in reliable sources, that is what's required to show notability. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Love Song

Yet another non-notable single by Raven-Symoné. Yamh91 constantly undoes all redirects of Raven-Symoné related articles, accusing me of vandalism in the process, so here we are again. Never charted. Fails WP:NSONGS. Per NSONGS, title should be a redirect to the parent album, thus all current content should be deleted, and a protected redirect installed. —Kww(talk) 22:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs as it hasn't charted or been covered in any sources. If redirected, it will easily be recreated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Yamh91 should also be beat with the clue stick (and blocked if he or she continues to ABF). JuJube (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - no deletion rationale provided. AFD is not for content disputes. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Failing WP:NSONGS is certainly a deletion rationale. Clarified my language.—Kww(talk) 16:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator is really calling for a redirect over an article. None of this requires a deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it isn't. There are different ways in which something can be not notable; and, as User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing with non-notable things says, thus different ways of dealing with them. You've basically brought a talk-page dispute, over an ordinary editorial action, to AFD, when the eventual action either way, be it reinstating or undoing the redirect, does not involve the use of administrator tools, and does not involve deletion at all. If you want to discuss mergers, then {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} are the templates, not {{subst:afd1}}. If you want to bring in outside opinions to help resolve an impasse over an ordinary editorial action, then Wikipedia:Requests for comments, Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion, and Wikipedia:Third opinion are the places. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is for deletion, as the name states. It's not for things that don't involve the administrator deletion tool. AFD is one of the highest trafficked parts of Wikipedia. It has enough traffic that actually involves deletion without need for traffic that does not. Uncle G (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article absolutely fails inclusion guidelines, must be deleted, and therefore I brought it to AFD. The installation of a redirect afterwards is as a courtesy, and, because of the actions of Yamh91, that redirect needs to be protected to prevent further recreations of the article. Admin tools are absolutely necessary to accomplish this.—Kww(talk) 13:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with Kww. One song that never charted does not, can not and, in all likelihood, will not justify an article in its own right. Judging by the behaviour of the creator, I think the nominator has done the right thing. It might, technically, be the wrong forum, but if I had a penny for every time AfD was used in place of another forum, I'd be a rich man. The content should be deleted (redirect if it must), protected and the authour warned. HJMitchell You rang? 15:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annabeth (Percy Jackson)

The author and the books are notable, but I think this article fails WP:BK under the category of derivative articles - it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book. In this case, the article consists entirely of original research whose only source is the books themselves. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until there are reliable independent references, this cannot be more than original research and must be deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources, specifically about this character, Incidentally the List of Percy Jackson and the Olympians characters could really do with a tidy, as it contains redirects to the same page, and links to Greek gods which do not mention the books at all. The article itself is horribly 'in world', and if trimmed to be encyclopedic would only be a stub, which would easily fit in the parent articles. Quantpole (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and encourage editors to address concerns per WP:POTENTIAL as the character IS in the notable books and does get her mention (in context with these books) in reviews in such reliable sources as CBBC, Pittsburg Post Gazette, Worcester News, CBC 1, USA Today, CBC 2, Business Standard, Chicago Pride... and with a library card, one can see more at School Library Journal 1, Chicago Tribune, School Library Journal 2, Register Guard, Publisher's Weekly, Kliatt, Booklist, Horn Book Magazine 1, Horn Book Magazine 2, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express News, Los Angeles Times, among others... and then let's add the fact that her character has NOW been cast in a film spinoff of the book Lightning Thief Holywood Reporter. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We editors will work all around the article and promise to make this a GA within 2 months. Please don't delete this article. I'll add third-party sources tomorrow & work on it from Tuesday. If Annabeth's article will be deleted just because of lack of 3rd party sources, then I bet that over 10,000 should be deleted for the same reason (and half of those are not notable enough). I'll encourage users at PJTF to improve the article significantly. Pmlinediter ^Talk 10:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To back up what I said, take a look here: Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built. We editors are trying to build the article and if you nominate it for AfD just then, then it is impossible for us to improve the article. Thanks. Pmlinediter ^Talk 10:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC) (on behalf of WP:PJTF)[reply]

Comment It's not just the lack of third party sources. The article as it stands is completely in contradiction to WP:INUNIVERSE and consists entirely of the world's most extended plot summary. It needs three quarters of the content removing and some kind of real world perspective injecting to demonstrate that the character has acquired notability separate to the books. Reviews which just mention the name as part of a plot summary are not sufficient in my view. If there are reviews that comment on the character separately (and there may well be) then you need to add both the source and a commentary on what the source is saying. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with this author or series at all, so I don't know if such sources exist - certainly nothing was done to improve the article in this respect after the first AfD.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first four sources only mention Annabeth in passing in a plot summary. This suggests to me that the article should be shortened to two or three sentences and merged back into the article on the book series, as the character (as opposed to the author or the books) is not notable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of the next four sources, all are short reviews of one or other book, of which one appears to mention Annabeth in passing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response, and not in agreement with your assessment, but AFD is not for WP:CLEANUP and WP:Merge discussions belong on the article's talk page after a keep. Your initial arguments for deletion is not among those listed at WP:DEL, and seems that the alternatives at WP:ATD should have been discussed or considered... more so because WP:DEL indicates that concerns over page content are suposed to be discussed and resolved, without going straight to deletion. Further, length of description has immediate relationship to the book(s) in question. Perhaps if she were a character in one short book, a short summary would be suitable. However, she is a major character in The Lightning Thief, The Sea of Monsters, The Titan's Curse, The Battle of the Labyrinth, The Last Olympian, and the movie Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief based on the series. That much inuniverse content requires a summary directly in relationship with the information being presented for a reader's understanding. It's perhaps understandable that with the nearly 3 million articles on wiki no one improved this one since the last AfD. However, with Wiki having no WP:DEADLINE for perfecton, it would be prudent to encourage and discuss proactive improvement per WP:POTENTIAL rather than toss this one on the ash heap. With a talkpage discussion it can be decided if Cleanup requires a scalpel or a machete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that cleanup and merge do not belong in an AFD discussion. I listed it for the reasons stated, and because I could find no sources that would help me clean it up. The book's characters, unlike the books or the author, do not appear to have become notable in themselves. If those interested in keeping the article find those sources and rewrite, that would be one thing, but so far I haven't seen any evidence that these sources exist. I wait to be persuaded.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Elen of the Roads does not seem to understand this that deleting Annabeth's page will trigger a major dispute. For example, if you deleted Lyra Silvertongue's page, all editors of His Dark Materials will be enraged. Deleting Annabeth's page would trigger a similar reaction. Pmlinediter ^Talk 11:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this is a reason not to delete it if the consensus were to be that it does violate WP:N??? Last time I looked, Wikipedia wasn't a fan club.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Pmlinediter. This article should not be deleted. Instead, suggestions should be made on how the article can be improved to meet WP:BK and how to get rid of original research in the article. Extremepro (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence that there are reliable sources treating this character in sufficient detail to establish her notability. Have we sunk so low, MichaelQ, that child-submitted online "reviews" that happen to mention a character's name are to be considered reliable sources? Deor (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing but an extended plot summary, references provided give no indication that they will be able to source anything but more plot summary.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor component of fictional work. The two references in the article consist of a routine announcement of a casting decision in The Hollywood Reporter, and a French translation of the Hollywood Reporter announcement. The Percy Jackson series is notable, but, lacking references specifically about that character, a secondary character in it is not. --John Nagle (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as major female character in book and film franchise covered in considerable out of universe context in numerous [Google News results. Coverage in so many reliable sources establishes the character's notability. Moreover, given that the character is the main female lead in a film and appearances in four published books it meets a common sense standard of notability. Also, this particular AfD is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Expanding_the_lower_threshold and Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Here.27s_a_frightening_thought as well. Also, we should speedy keep given that a previous discussion closed as an unambiguous "keep" already. In any event, article is without any doubt improveable further than what I have alreadys tarted and clearly per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE worthy of at worst a merge and redirect, which we can always discuss as a compromise. Deletion is obviously not the solution here, so we need to consider if the right approach is a merge and redirect or improvement or rewrite, but that can be all be worked out on the article's talk page. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Slightly misleading - the AfD isn't being discussed at all. The only thing within the AfD being referred to was the suggestion that the article could not be deleted even if not notable because the article editors would riot. And then only because I am trying to understand what the issues are that prevent a consensus on how notability applies to spinouts on characters etc. AFAIK, no-one from the fiction notability discussion is remotely interested in this AfD, other than as yet another gauge of consensus (or the lack thereof). They certainly haven't posted here, and I wouldn't expect them to.

As to your other point, the fact that the character appears in the film does not make it any more notable than it was in the book. The fact that they cast a female actor to play the character, does not make the character notable. The film isn't made, no-one knows if it's going to be the biggest thing since whatever, of if it's going to tank and go straight to dvd. WP:CRYSTAL There is nothing in the article that is worth keeping as far as I can see, but I've already said that.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD being mentioned there means that there's a good potential participants from that discussion will carry over to here as happened with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Gray. Appearing in multiple works of fiction is a common sense measure of notability in that of the billions of characters in novels, only a fraction also appear in film, and as the main female lead in the film. The newly cited information is clearly mergeable to either a character list, article on the film, articles on the book series as a whole, etc. and thus per WP:PRESERVE, these are the options that we need to explore WP:BEFORE considering deletion, which we consider an extreme last resort for hoaxes, copy vios, etc., i.e. stuff that has no potential of any kind. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your concern, and really should have waited before referring to the AfD elsewhere. I have responded elsewhere re your suggestion to add the casting reference in this article to an article about the film version, but I don't think it alters the fact that the character is not currently notable.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Please note that I am actively working to improve the article and as such, more sources and out of universe context are in the process of being added, which can be merged if needed elsewhere, such as at Percy_Jackson_film#Film_adaptation. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They could in my opinion more properly have been added to the film page to start with. I admire your tenacity however.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable character in fiction, that has appeared in multiple works, in film and books. There is certainly enough information about her to warrant her own article. Dream Focus 20:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this character notable in accordance with WP:GNP and WP:BK, which are the only actual policies involved here.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNP is an essay. That makes it meaningless. WP:BK is a guideline, which are suggestions not something you absolutely have to follow. Neither are policies. Anyone can make an essay that says whatever they want, and the guidelines are constantly changing, and never decided by any significant percentage of wikipedia users. Dream Focus 01:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, nice dodge. Although did you really say that policies are meaningless, or am I reading too much into too short a comment? I have to say this discussion is fascinating. Reasons for deletion (which is a policy - it says "policy" right there on the top) says that a valid reason for deletion is Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth). Now since as you so rightly point out WP:FICT is not a guideline, the guideline is either WP:BK or WP:N. If, as I believe you may have done, one argues that the Derivatives section in WP:BK is not relevant as a notability guideline, then the standard for characters from a book currently falls back on WP:N. When listed, this article certainly failed WP:N (and GCSE English, although that in itself would not of course be a reason for deletion - it could have and indeed has been written better) as it listed no sources whatsoever, not even citations for the book that the character was (at that point allegedly since no citations were offered) sprung from.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, it's useless to point to policies when the Article Rescue Squadron Extraordinaire whips into action. All one can do is quail before their mighty powers of obfuscation. Deor (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to get that feeling:) So many people quoting what I didn't say....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly keep your slanderous personal attacks to yourselves. Dream Focus 01:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the nominator quotes Wikipedia:BK#Derivative_articles:

It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. What this means is that while a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case . Exceptions do, of course, exist—see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction).

Which is not the reality. In fact, WP:FICT has failed three times to gain support, and unlike WP:BK, editors actually decided whether it was or was not a guideline first, and they have soundly rejected this view, three times. The edit history shows that the very first edit on WP:BK the sole editor had already proclaimed it was a guideline.[2] In addition, the book contains 8 different references now. Ikip (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't quote WP:FICT. That, as you point out, has failed to gain support as a policy. The policy is WP:GNP and it's expansive offshoot WP:BK from which I did quote "it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not." That at least is clear enough, despite the continued debate as to what might actually make a derivative article notable.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator Please not the signifigant improvements in this article since its nomination.[3] Ikip (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:Alexandra Daddario, Talk:Rick Riordan, and Talk:Percy Jackson & The Olympians page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Comment. There is clearly a difference of opinion on what constitutes significant coverage of fictional characters in books. Any well known book will have many references that mention the main characters. Despite requests, there has not been coverage specifically about the character in question. The casting references are mainly about the person being cast, not discussion of the character herself. It is growing increasingly apparent that there are some editors who seem to take the attitude that any significant character in a notable book is automatically notable. Is this really in line with policy? Also, who determines the notability or otherwise of a book? Is it just notable in wikipedia terms? (As an example Claudia Coulter was recently kept, many of the Keep votes referencing her lead in 'notable' film The Witches Hammer, which was only reviewed in specialist horror websites, and went straight to DVD). If this is going to become the accepted standard then every major character in every book on wikipedia could justifiably have an article. Sorry for the slippery slope argument, but that's the way I can see these things going. Quantpole (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's just the thing, we don't have a consensus on the notability of fictional characters as seen at WP:FICT's talk page. Thus, we mostly focus on verifiability and common sense measures of notability. Moreover, a recent RFC on Not#Plot had a majority opposed to the restrictions on Plot, which resulted in it being tagged as "dubious". Thus, the community has yet to iron these issues out. So, if we go by verifiability, we can verify the article's contents through a variety of primary and secondary sources, included some out of universe content as well, which means that the article is not entirely original research. Then we go with a common sense measure of notability. It concerns a main character who appears in multiple books and is played in an upcoming film by an actress for whom we have an article. It doesn't mean every major character in every book on Wikipedia should have an article, but say characters who appear in multiple books, as well as in a film, and for whom we do have a number of sources, we can justify either having an article or per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE take a middle ground and say merge and redirect the sourced content to wherever useful and thereby keep the edit history so that as additional sources come about, editors do not have to start over. I think deletion here would be premature. We can always for the time being merge the sourced information and redirect with edit history intact and then if the film is a some kind of hit and additional interviews and reception style information comes out, we already have the basis or foundation from which to build available. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Actually, until someone finally comes up with a workable fict, A Nobody's definition of "common sense" remains just that: A Nobody's definition of common sense. Actual guidelines still demand that the topic of the article be examined directly and in detail by multiple third-party sources, and WP:NOT#PLOT remains policy. Until those two things change, deleting this article would appear to be the most reasonable action, because this article is essentially a plot summary, and, outside of plot summaries, the references do not examine this particular character directly and in detail, instead choosing to focus on the overall work.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Plot remains disputed and marked as dubious, because it lacks consensus and support. Something marked as such isn't something we're bound by. Because the references examine this particular character directly and in detail, the article is keepable or at worst merge and redirectable, which is why it is being balanced between plot summary and the newer sections on development and reception. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - In this case I'd be happy for the merge as you suggest it, and thanks for trying to reach some common ground. There's too many of us (probably including myself) who aren't willing to compromise much here. One of the issues I see is that there isn't much of an incentive for those who want to keep these articles to actually agree to a policy. At the moment this sort of debate will often be closed as no consensus, as it is a grey area, which rightly means the page will be kept. Quantpole (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Utterly off topic for the AfD, but I'd be interested to see whether there is a consensus around the simple statement that "as a minimum, a character can be said to have acquired notability if they are referred to in a WP:RS review of the book." It's probably not enough for the hardline notability crew, and too much for the side that wishes to assert notability by some derivative of the "everyone knows" argumentElen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Put simply, main characters in important fiction are notable. WP:PLOT does not talk about individual wp articles, just wp coverage in general. As long as the work of fiction is covered in other aspects somewhere, an article about a character or plot does not violate the present wording. (Obviously, some people have tried to make it apply to individual articles, but that wording to has been rejected as have many other changes. I think there is in fact a consensus that the present wording is not good; what is lacking is a consensus for what to do about it. This sort of situation can prevent action indefinitely. I hope we'll compromise sooner or later. The renomination of articles that have already been kept is to me a signal that those supporting the deletion are not willing to compromise. I agree there is a difference iun opinion, and that means there is no consensus to delete DGG (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think the article as it was when nominated was deserving of deletion under the existing policy WP:N (why all the keepers keep quoting other things that aren't policy, I don't know). Whether journos asking the author if actress X can play the character better than actress Y represents notability of the character is an interesting question for the consensus. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, your argument presumes that there is somewhere an article about this topic that isn't plot heavy. I can't find it. Percy Jackson & The Olympians is primarily plot. The Lightning Thief is 95% plot. The Sea of Monsters is 95% plot. The Titan's Curse is 95% plot. The Battle of the Labyrinth is 95% plot. The Last Olympian is 98% plot. There are plot-heavy articles on multiple characters as well. This series is a poster child for what NOT#PLOT is supposed to put a stop to. If you added all the non-plot coverage in the dozen or so articles together, it would still be a damn short article.—Kww(talk) 01:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's slightly disingenuous to say that the renomination means an unwillingness to compromise, when the original nominator is not a part of this discussion and none of those voting delete here were involved in the previous one. Quantpole (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep main character across two media and several works. there will be commentary. Casliber (talk ·contribs) 23:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One might ask why then it is proving so difficult to find. The truth is that commentary on the character may or may not exist, but no evidence that it does exist has been shown here.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

because there are other sources that (believe it or not) are not online. Check any newsstand to see the huge variety of detailed commentary on all this sort of stuff. Unfortunately, I have not had the time or inclination to check this one out, but someone should. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the burden of producing such a source belong to the people asserting that they exist? Why should an opinion that comes down to "I'm sure the people arguing that there are not sources are wrong, even though I, myself, cannot be bothered to provide any evidence supporting my position" be given any weight in an AFD?—Kww(talk) 13:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been said before, but it's not my job to prove myself wrong. Whoever 'someone' is, they really need to get on with it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Keep As I said previously, Annabeth is a notable character. Anyway, the primary concern for the article was its lack of references which has been handled by now. Pmlinediter ^Talk 07:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the web references. Does anyone have access to these books: School Library Journal 1, Chicago Tribune, School Library Journal 2, Register Guard, Publisher's Weekly, Kliatt, Booklist, Horn Book Magazine 1, Horn Book Magazine 2?

Sorry User:Pmlinediter - does "as I said" meet the requirements of WP:RS? The issue has always been not whether you or I view the character as notable or not, but whether reliable sources confirm that the character is notable. Sources have been added (and the writing improved which you yourself noted as a necessity a couple of months ago) - the question remains whether they are sufficient to establish notability. Is it notable if -

1. Reviewers sometimes mention this character in reviews as being a character in the book (so far none of the reviews have done more than that, and some reviews do not mention the character at all - I personally would have expected that to establish notability, the reviewer needs to say a little more, but I doubt there is consensus on this view.

2. Since the book is being made into a film, it is necessary to cast an actor to play the part, and the casting process has attracted some media attention. The question here I think is whether the notability attaches to the actor, the book or the character. Can you establish that it attaches to the character?Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable fictional character. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion, especially when not true. Please be honest in these discussions. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whilst WP:JNN certainly applies, saying someone is not being honest is not helpful. Quantpole (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The account in question indiscriminately says to delete everything, because he thinks we have too many articles and so never argues to keep, even when articles are improved during the discussions; thus, pretty much all of the votes from this account are of the WP:PERNOM or WP:JNN variety that never actually addresses the article under discussion. It's essentially akin to the copy and paste "oppose per too many admins" we see at RfAs. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to have the minimal references required for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to pretty clearly meet the notability requirements. The plot-summary-ish/in-universe content is an issue, but that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Robofish (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is any worth information for this character found on the future then add it to the list of characters. There is a list of characters and I think we don't need lengthly details for characters, apart maybe from one or two. We can create very good summaries of the books in their page. Creating articles for characters won't offer any more good. So, it's a matter of organising the information we have in an optimal way: Good articles for the books that have summaries and list of characters to give profiles and/or highlight of the characters and more important present how this characters are realised in other media, press,books, etc. All this can fit in one article for each book and one list of characters article (with always the exception of the protagonist character which may need an additional article). If we have more information we can think if something judging by the WP:SIZE but until then no reason to create article like that. A more reasonable expansion of information, depending of the material we have every time, helps in adding more quality information and helps readers to read articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember, though, if we merge any of it, then it cannot be deleted per the GFDL. As usual, I am not opposed to working on a character list. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect I'm surprised to find myself saying this, because I thoroughly dislike deletionism, and the character seems to be effectively the co-star of the series. However the changes to Annabeth (Percy Jackson) since its last AfD in Dec 2008 have moved the article further towards being a near-duplicate of information in Percy Jackson & The Olympians. OTOH I'd want the redirect for this and other character articles because I can imagine readers arriving by looking for info about Annabeth. I suggest the editor(s) of Percy Jackson & The Olympians and the articles on the individual books should improve these articles as much as possible, and then break out separate articles when info on sub-topics such as major characters that is well-supported by good references becomes too lengthy to fit in the existing articles. This is the pattern one would expect in other literature articles, for example: there's an article about Shakespeare's Hamlet, and Hamlet (legend), analyses trhe historical basis of the play's leading character; and the process of improving Hamlet may well produce enough info for a separate article about significant aspects of the character, e.g. whether he was insane and whether he had an Oedipus complex. PS I think at present "merge and redirect" is also in the interests of the editor(s), since having a lot of articles means they have to do more work to keep updates consistent, protect the articles from vandalism, etc. - articles, like puppies, are for life. --Philcha (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking on the stress on the editors, but I, as a principle editor of the article would be pleased were the article kept and later promoted to a good article. Pmlinediter ^Talk 08:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly, all the article needs is time. Either give WP:PJTF a month to improve the articles sources or just delete it right away and then let us start from scratch.--(NGG) 11:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Elmore

This article has been present for a long time, but it's been tagged with {{primarysources}} for most of that time, except when Stephen Mallory removed it. It's been repeatedly readded. The article is based entirely on self-written if not self-published material, because as far as I can tell, no reliable secondary sources on the guy exist. Most of the people who bothered to criticize him were on web forums like Bullshido.net or Encyclopedia Dramatica, which I'm pretty sure we can't cite. So either we need sources that comment on what he says, or we just have a vanity page which is not allowed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate 14 81 11:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable figure in the online martial arts community. The page has been a constant BLP problem but that doesn't change matters. JJL (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't assert notability; show it. But in this case, it can't be done. Fences and windows (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached--clearly the first week is not enough to get the necessary attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is established but most of the article is unverifiable. Unverifiable information should be deleted. Anyone who re-inserts unreferenced information after being warned is a vandal and should be banned. Drawn Some (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How has notability been established? There aren't any secondary reliable sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only part conceivably notable is his writings. As a novelist, the only work held in a worldcat library is held by one library only; his self-defense books exactly the same; not surprising, since they're self-published. DGG (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to show notability it's hard to vote anything else. --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find myself respectfully agreeing with Drawn Some fairly frequently of late but this is the first time I've rebutted his keep vote. However notable this guy may or may not be, primary sources are not sufficient for WP:N or WP:RS, this seems to be purely a vanity page that cites more vanity pages. Creating lots of webpages on oneself does not make one notable" HJMitchell You rang? 15:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There were various (uncited) claims of importance through having somewhat notable alumni, but notability is not inherited, and User:Kelapstick makes a persuasive argument. That said, as always, I'm willing to userify if somebody thinks that they'll be able to locate some sourcing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SCFX

Article was speedily deleted, then contested. Prod was added, then removed by article creator. Organization is not notable outside of the University of Southern California. Claim to being first special effects group is neither sourced and even if it were, probably wouldn't make it notable. TM 20:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had done some GNews serches (I was going to nominate it but was too late) and all came up with nothing, they were:

SCFX +university +california
+university +southern +california+ special +effects - this came up something about supercritical fluid extrusion at USC Davis
+USC +scfx

There was a mention in the school newspaper (included in the article) but it looked like passing mention and in my opinion a school newspaper reporting about an organization based at the school is hardly independent enough to establish notability.--kelapstick (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hangon. We've already established that the speedy deletion was unfounded (mistaken) as article asserts importance (see Speedy_Delete#Articles #7). Internet sources are not going to be easy to come by, but I'll try to find some sources. To summarize the reasons why this group is notable, it's the premiere academic group for special effects in the #1 film school and is the student ground zero for the special effects industry. The group's existence as an academic venue for the promotion of technical learning in the field of special effects predates any academic program in special effects, which are now commonplace, the field having evolved into a major commercial and artistic industry. Long history, many notable alumni, active both in terms of student development and work production, well known in the industry, group alumni regularly return to give lectures for the group, or invite the group for tours at major special effects studios, such as Stan Winston Studios or Digital Domain or ILM. The creator of Photoshop (also a major figure in special effects, having directed the effects for the Star Wars prequel trilogy) was a member. Robert K S (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I had originally speedy-deleted it,but reverted it to give time for sources to be added to show importance, which I think remains necessary. Looking at it again, there is perhaps evidence for notability in the distinguished alumni, though sources for each of them being there are needed. Ideal would be sources for their talking about its importance in their careers--as far as I'm concerned that would be proof of notability. I almost always say to delete student clubs, but this may be an exception. DGG (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no independent references are available to establish notability and to verify the content of an article. Notablity for an organization cannot be inherited from its members or former members. Drawn Some (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The criteria should be no different to anything else, i.e. coverage in third party reliable sources. If there have been notable members of an organisation, then that is a sign that the organisation may be notable, but doesn't prove notability. Having notable members means that it is more likely that this coverage will exist, but there still needs to be the coverage! I'm pretty sure that pretty much every student group will be able to claim a notable person as a member. Even if sources are found to say so-and-so was a member of such-and-such a group, unless the "sources address the subject directly in detail" it is not enough to establish notability. Quantpole (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or merge appropriate content to USC. If User:Robert K S wants, the page could be userified until he and or others can find reliable sources that comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. tedder (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, this should redirect to South Central Florida Express, Inc. --NE2 17:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with that assessment. The appropriate redirect to that organization is SCFE. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "X" is often used for "express", for instance by the DOT and several news articles. The reporting mark is SCXF because marks ending in X are used for non-railroads only. --NE2 19:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FX As in effects. As in special effects. As in Keanu Reaves dodging bullets in The Matrix y/n?Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would have said this could be notable. Yes, every frat, society and what have you must have famous alumni (damn right Skippy - sorry, Doonesbury reference) but this soc. seems to have a programme to bring on new special FX guys, which might make it more notable. More evidence about it's support/placement programme needed to convince me though - otherwise it's just the same old school tie that powers every other Greek, which isn't notable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - only significant author has requested deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision alignment

Contested prod; prod tag was removed without comment by the article’s author. Original prod reason was “No claims of why it should be included. Reads like marketing copy, or a presentation in a management meeting. Cannot find any copyviolations, but it reads like it possibly is (possibly.) No context and just doesn't seem encyclopaedic." I agree - the article doesn't assert notability, it reads like an ad or a promotion of some sort, and it provides no meaningful context. Note that it is likely self-promotional and possibly original research, see this blog about "decision alignment" written by a Mark Chidwick, and the author or the Wikipedia article is User:Markchidwick. "Decision Alignment" has about 100 Google hits, but they don't all seem to be about the concept as described here. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as person who put the original Prod on the article, for the comments listed above. Canterbury Tail talk 23:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious advertising that can never be neutral, and because this kind of writing is patent nonsense: Decision Alignment, commonly abbreviated "DA", is a methodology, standards and best practices for management consultants, focused on empowering business leaders to have confidence in the decision making process. The markets are changing the way organization are approaching their decision-making processes due to the availability and richness of information, the availability and depth of domain experts and the need to respond rapidly to market conditions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not yet a notable concept. It needs secondary articles first, then it can be added back in. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: This is my first Wikipedia and I should have started in the sandbox - live and learn. The article does read like marketing, I agree. I need to work on it further and learn how to "encyclopedia speak". The concept is much the same as PMI or ISO, so I believe it to be a worth while article.

If there is a way to take the article off of the published area and into the sandbox, please advise. I have tried to find a way with no success. Then I can improve, remove the marketing speak and have something worth while.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markchidwick (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In my opinion, the problem isn't so much the writing style, which could be fixed, but the lack of evidence that this is a notable concept. (Mine is, of course, just one opinion.) The "management-speak" tone of it isn't helping, but it's a secondary point. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: Until I can improve the content to demonstrate a notable concept, can I ask that this article be deleted. I thought I would be able to do this myself, but cant see how. - Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markchidwick (talk • contribs) 19:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Screens of Death. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screens of death on video game consoles

Orginal research on the color of error screens Passportguy (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not original, as it had been there for a while, and was confirmed by other users. If sources is what you need, I can put some up. — Supuhstar * § 19:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Original research. --Izno (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seen, applied references.— Supuhstar * § 22:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Largely original research with but one source to back it up. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Not that I have that much attachment to it, it just seems like something that should be on Wikipedia: an article with information and images that the world should know and see for free. — Supuhstar * § 00:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- lol Wikipedia hasn't been about that kind of thing in a very long time. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merely existing does not justify inclusion on Wikipedia. To qualify as notable, articles must be reliably sourced and verifiable, and therefore should not contain original research. As it stands, this article cites only one source and therefore very much fails those policies and guidelines. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Screens of Death— Supuhstar * § 03:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Screens of Death as this may be a fork of the article. The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ If no one doubts the subject exist, then there is no reason to run around looking for references to prove it. A more scientific name might be preferred, but its called the screen of death everywhere. Windows 95 had an often mentioned and complained about blue screen of death. Dream Focus 01:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Screens of death since its the same thing and there isn't enough information to warrant its own article at this moment in time. As long as ALL of the information is preserved, no reason not to shift it on over. Dream Focus 20:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Existence" isn't a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Unless reliable sources can be proven to exist to show its notability, an article shouldn't exist. As it stands, only one source exists, and that is far from enough to comply with the notability guidelines. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why should all the information be preserved? It's almost all original research. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The Junk Police. Tomdobb (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge information with Screens of Death, per The Junk Police Taelus (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Mitchell

Non-notable person. Subject apparently wrote article about himself. No sources of any kind. Promotional in nature. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references provided. Possible speedy? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tried that. It was declined because of the claims of notability in the article, which are spurious at best. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability from various searches online. There are, in fact, other Shane Mitchells who appear to be notable, including P. Shane Mitchell, but this guy's not. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; non notable individual. — Jake Wartenberg 22:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Rose

Musician which may not meet WP:MUSIC, news articles about her are trivial and she hasn't has had a charted single or album on any national music chart. Holkingers (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of YouTube celebrities. Don't see any points of WP:MUSICBIO fulfilled. Hekerui (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What about all the citations to reliable sources? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rolling Stone blog post is a commentary on internet marketing and info about Rose is trivial. This is true for the other sources (they make similar points about independent music). Rose has not produced notable work and the coverage with her is about marketing. She could well be notable in the future, but right now I don't see criteria fulfilled. Hekerui (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whoa, that is a snap judgment, and it is not correct. The reference to the Sun gives a brief article but it's legit; the article from The Age is absolutely legit (pretty obviously so); and the Rolling Stone reference leads not to just any blog--Elizabeth Goodman is, as far as I can tell, a staff writer for the magazine, and the article is long enough. So, there is independent coverage, at least two of those are not trivial and they certainly are independent--she passes WP:N. This "Child of Midnight" person seems, possibly by complete chance, to have hit the mark and found the bacon in the pigsty that is sometimes AfD. ;) 207.157.121.50 (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the articles are genuine but they are simply of the format "Person X" is hoping to make it big, which I considered trivial. Holkingers (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read the articles more carefully. The article in the age opens with, if you'll pardon the long quote to establish non-triviality,

"THE new indie dream is sexy and free. This week her name is Mia Rose. She was nobody when she opened her YouTube account in late December. Within three weeks she had more than 200,000 fans making her the "Most Subscribed (YouTube) Musician of all Time".

Even Rolling Stone knows her name. Actually, the American music magazine calls her "a disturbingly well-packaged 18-year-old singer-songwriter", which suggests they also know her game.

The pretty acoustic balladeer is the latest overnight sensation bridging the credibility gap between the independent bedroom and the Big Time. She seems too good to be true with her dark, silky hair tumbling over her guitar, her girl-next-door spark and her TV Idol voice (http://youtube.com/user/miaarose).

That's because she was most likely signed, coached and groomed by management and marketing experts well before posting her latest videos about (surprise!) flying around the world negotiating with record companies.

Rose is one of the new generation of faux internet indies, acts that use social networking sites such as MySpace and YouTube to fabricate a groundswell of popular support as part of a carefully orchestrated debutante publicity campaign."

All this starts a 2000-word article on the phenomenon of virtual fame, or YouTube fame, or whatever you want to call it. Maybe you think the coverage is trivial, but I am sure (and hopeful) that other editors who will weigh in here, and the closing admin, will think differently. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC) (sitting at my own desk now)[reply]

So what you are saying is she is notable for being an example of a "faux internet indie" which is someone that has an choreographed internet campaign to hype them. It's a pity she hasn't had commercial success. Maybe the article should make this clearer that that is the reason for her inclusion. Holkingers (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying she is notable because she passes WP:N. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm with Hekerui, I see no notability here. She's just somebody who's gotten fairly well known on Youtube. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the articles on Rolling Stone and The Age are significant coverage, which is enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines, if the GNG is met, there is no need to pass WP:MUSICBIO. For those who do not consider the articles to be significant coverage WP:ENTERTAINER includes people with:

a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" --kelapstick (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

200,000 registered fans (the Most Subscribed (YouTube) Musician of all Time) is enough for me.--kelapstick (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage adequate for notability purposes.--Michig (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Kelapstick regarding the large fan base. No prejudice should be allowed against YouTube compared to traditional networks. The number of people subscribing is normally much smaller than the number of viewers. Drawn Some (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting an important criteris of WP:ENTERTAINER... the cult following and fan base... one which leads to repeated coverage in reliable sources. Its a lock per guideline, as guideline does not quailfy nor limit what constitutes a fanbase or cult following. Large is large. Rewrite the guideline if you wish, but she meets it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage adequate, fan base/cult status exists, and she was one of the first people who got 'fairly well known on YouTube' and prompted significant debate between the YouTube purists (i.e. corporate sponsorship sucks, it's about the community) and YouTube brand builders (i.e. corporate sponsorship isn't actually the work of the devil and it's okay to promote yourself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.176.12 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources provided demonstrate that she meets the notability guidelines. Robofish (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Nicole Lee

No strong assertion of notability; quite promotional in tone. —Bkell (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spammy and I didn't see a good indication of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of WP:COI but it sounds like a page intended to promote a not so notable model. Only external ref on here is Ms. Lee's webpage. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of notability, clearly promotional in tone. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Tomdobb (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist Hospital of Miami

Delete another one-line unreferenced article for a hospital basically telling us no more than it exists. No indication of notability, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I don't believe hospitals are inherently notable, and I find no significant coverage of this hospital whatsoever. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of reliable references are available to prove that the hospital is notable and to support a verifiable article, as has been demonstrated by Eastmain. Stubs shouldn't be deleted just because they are stubs if there is potential for them to become articles. We don't have a deadline. Drawn Some (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I get 750+ results on a Newsbank search. See the work I did on the similar Larkin Community Hospital article, I'm confident the same work could be done with this article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major hospitals are notable. There is one substantial article about it, serving as proof, a source from whioch the article could be improved. I wouldn't go by a count of other news stories as they are likely to be passing or trivial mentions, such as the other 3 references in the article. . DGG (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not asserted. JFW | T@lk 10:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larkin Community Hospital

Delete nothing to indicate that this hospital is notable, no sources, no apparent significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here also, no significant coverage (not even a press release that I could find); this entry is appropriate in a directory but not here. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd be inclined to call speedy for lack of content, but wish to give a chance to make it work. It says it's a hospital in Miami, that's it. Nothing more than that. Somebody do us something?--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work. Keep. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because an article is a stub is no reason to delete it. I have edited the article incorporating multiple reliable references and it now certainly more than meets notability requirements not only in theory but in reality. It is important to look for information before deleting. Any hospital or large corporation in the U.S. will have sufficient independent references to establish notability and verifiability. Drawn Some (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this hospital has a wacky and well documented past, involving no less than Jimmy Hoffa. I have also added several sources. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting stuff, better than what I found. I started a new category, Wacky hospitals and medical centers. Drawn Some (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of stuff that isn't encyclopedic but is just utterly bizarre about this hospital... among the doctor's they've had on staff have included a registered sex offender who assaulted a patient at the hospital and a heart surgeon who claimed to suffer from ever-increasing memory lapses, who agreed to turn himself in on charges of fraud and perjury but kept working at the hospital. At any rate, the muslim student incident in 2002 appears to have been a relatively major news story, with over 150 stories in Newsbank about it, many of them criticizing Larkin Hospital for its actions. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the ER doc/child molester should be included? I didn't actually read the articles about that but I did see them. Drawn Some (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah the article is about the hospital, not the individual doctors... unless they somehow effect overall operation of the hospital, I'd think. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No specific claim to fame other than a couple of local scandals. JFW | T@lk 10:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CORP, the applicable guideline here, says "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". The article demonstrates that. What guideline are you basing your argument to delete on? At any rate, I find it unlikely that the nation's leading newspapers universally reporting on an event means it's just a "local scandal". --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if hospitals are not considered inherently notable, the references meet WP:GNG. Erik9 (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lost dream

Non-notable television series; no sources (third-party or otherwise). KurtRaschke (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest a Turkish Wikipedian be consulted. Article suggests it's been aired. At the very least it should be moved to all caps I would think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per common outcomes. Legitimate television series broadcast internationally by a major network is notable. Currently listed in the MBC 4 programs schedule. Article should have been tagged for cleanup, not AfD. ChildofMidnight's suggestion is correct, article should be moved to The Lost Dream, which already has a redlink at MBC 4. Sarilox (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice research by User:Sarilox . Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prashanth Misale

This about-to-be first-time DP does not appear (to date) to have a claim to notability. See this all-date Google news archive search and this general web search. The former turns up zero hits. The latter generates no hits that appear to be both significant and from reliable sources. Who knows? He could win an award for his cinematography on his first try—but as of now, he doesn't seem to meet the guidelines.

This nomination is without prejudice— I realize that there may be more sources in other languages that I am not capable of identifying. If so, could someone please point them out. Bongo matic 16:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think an assistant cinematographer is notable, and the only work as main cinematographer hasn't even been released yet. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. As an assistant, this isn't likely. No established body of work as the primary cinematograper. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Under the different Engli-fications of his name (Prashanth Misale, Prashant Misale, Prasanth Misale, Prahant Misale, Prashanth Mishale, Prasanth Mishale, etc.) he does have an impressive history as a respected cameraman. Can anyone find non-English sources toward awards or recognition? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Landy

~~Non notable biography. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources.~~. RadioFan (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I declined the speedy as the article asserts significance or importance, but at the time I wasn't sure if it would survive AFD. However I've now googled him and added one of the links that I found and IMHO he meets WP:ACADEMIC clause 8 as editor of Organised Sound. Plus with his publications and citations in various places including Wkipedia he probably meets other criteria as well. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was informed a few days ago that academics with more than a couple of published books are notable, he fits. Drawn Some (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Radio Fan keeps nominating adequate articles like this I will be filing an ANI about him. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Initial article did not give much indication of notability and references weren't easy to find on this subject but sufficient references have been added to indicate notability. --RadioFan (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lawton

The article was previously deleted under A7. Listing AfD to generate a more thorough discussion. Seems to go by the name Steve West nowadays. decltype (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just does not meet the actor requirements listed at WP:BIO. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per best known as chaffeur in seeds of chucky. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable per WP:ENTERTAINER. Beware the second coming. Drawn Some (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Drawn Some (talk) --ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds stargaze 12:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and be kind as userfy to author. The actor Lawton/West has done more dancing and chorus work than acting, but as yet has not enough verifiable credits. The assertion of he being best known as the limo driver in Seed of Chucky is verifiable... and his character IS one of Chucky's main targets... but when searching for him in multiple reviews of the film he is "best known for", all I can find are bare (no pun intended) mentions of him in context with the plot... as the reviewers pay far more attention to Jennifer Tilly. Sorry Steve. Get some more going for you and come on back. We'll be here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is nothing more than a list of works. Symplectic Map (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Flowers

Non-notable song. Never charted, no reliable sources. Only consists of a list of artists who have covered the song, with none of the covers having been released as a single or achieved any form of notability. Suggest deletion and moving Dead Flowers (Miranda Lambert song) to this title. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rolling Stones songs are notable, no matter which one. This one in particular was part of one of their albums which made the List of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time so there's no question it's notable. Agree that the article needs some sources though, but that shouldn't be hard to find. Laurent (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No song is automatically notable, regardless of who sang it. Where the heck did you get that from? Also, simply being on a notable album that made a Rolling Stone list doesn't make the song notable either if there are no sources specifically about the song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources. Laurent (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One source for a simple fact that can be merged into the album's article. Songs only warrant articles when you can bother to write more than three or four sentences of facts plus four or five more sentences that are all clearly WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSONGS, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." The article shows that a number of notable artists, like Cowboy Junkies, Gilby Clarke and Poison have covered the song, which would mean that it meets this guideline. Disclaimer: I know it says "probably" in the guideline, so I wouldn't view a merge with the album's article as unreasonable. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would work. I would suggest merging the verifiable content to the album's article, then moving the Miranda Lambert song to just Dead Flowers and leaving a hatnote for the album on her song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I have with that is that we'd lose the edit history from this article if the other song is moved to this title, and as I understand it, if we're doing a merge, we need to keep that history intact per the GFDL (I could be wrong on this, and if I am, feel free to correct me). Perhaps a merge of this article into the album, with a redirect to the Stones' album set up, with a hatnote on that album saying that Dead Flowers redirects there, for the Miranda Lambert song, see that article]]. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history can be fixed by moving this article to Dead Flowers (Rolling Stones song) then redirecting, can't it? Then the redirect left behind can be G6'd so the Miranda Lambert song can be moved. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A widely-covered and famous song that has been credited with giving birth to Alt-Country (Austin American-Statesman Oct 19, 2006). Plenty of Google News (mostly pay-per-view) and Google Books coverage of the song.--Michig (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is this a serious question? It is widely covered and appears on soundtrack of the famous cult film The Big Lebowski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claygate (talk • contribs)
Comment. I'm not convinced the Miranda Lambert song merits an article, let alone taking this article's title.--Michig (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least her song is a chart single. I would've redirected hers for now, but I didn't really want to make any more confusion than necessary. I usually redirect singles that are below Top 20, but Lambert's song has a couple more sources, so I'll let it slide even though it just cracked Top 40. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – ("Dead Flowers" + "Jagger") gets 125 hits in my library's database of newspaper and magazine articles. Several writers describe the song as a Stones "classic". I also found the "birth of alt country" reference that Michig noted above. Other examples: Jay Miller of the The Patriot Ledger calls it an "alt country anthem" (Jan. 26, 2009; p. 19) and Rick Mitchell of the Houston Chronicle writes that the song "predated the current crop of country punks by about a quarter century". (Nov. 12, 1995; p. 6). Anthony DeCurtis of Rolling Stone writes, "'Dead Flowers' is possibly the best country-style song that Jagger and Richards have ever written" (May 15, 1997; p. 54). As for the covers, the Cowboy Junkies version got some press, and the Steve Earle one did as well, including in this book. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — Jake Wartenberg 00:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Scouting Nederland. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting gijsbrecht van aemstel

Wrong language. Nathanhillinbl (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait it out - Subject seems notable, though I can't be sure. I have tagged it as an article needing translation. According to policy, if it is not translated in 2 weeks, it will be listed for deletion. ~~NOTE- If anyone knows the language, please Google translate. Thanks.~~ A v N 15:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - The language is Dutch. Google translation. Seems notable enough. The translation is also accurate, so it can be kept if no one rewrites. I !vote keep, rewrite/translate. A v N 15:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I translated the article, and can find no references whatsoever anywhere. The Dutch article is also at their AfD, and it has just as little as ours had (I deleted some info I deemed trivial). The link provided by the editor above gives nothing about our club. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean references in the article, that's not a reason to delete the article itself. A Google search throws up a plethora of third-party references, implying that even though it might be of local significance, it is quite notable. A v N 04:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the main Scouting in the Netherlands article. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting and Guiding in the Netherlands redirects to Scouting Nederland as the only national Scouting organization. As best I see, this is a local group of Scouting Nederland. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but being the first such local chapter in the Netherlands would make it notable enough for its own entry. The real issue is that it needs independent verification because it's an exceptional claim that could be countered. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main Scouting in the Netherlands article.-Phips (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge even if notable, the oldest Finnish and Indian troops went back into their national articles. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain the rationale behind merge even even if notable ? Isn't notability the main criterion? A v N 17:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan Saurus

Concept car with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Just 10 gnews hits[4], several of which appear to be the same story in different papers. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article indicates it influenced a production model and a racing series. So it seems quite notable. If not worth an independent article could also be merged. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we had some independent, reliable sources that showed it was a notable influence, I'd have no problem keeping the article. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any. Is there a logical merge target? I didn't see one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Nissan vehicles. It's verifiable that this vehicle exists, so information about it belongs on Wikipedia; but it's not notable so it doesn't get its own article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some sources. Unfortuantely a lot of the content is not free. It's also a Japanese car so a source check there is needed. The car inspired a racing series and was put into production as a racing kit car. So it seems quite notable especially considering this is something from teh late 80s. There's also [5] and [6] and [7]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented on CoM's talk page, nationmaster.com is a Wikipedia mirror.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My mistake. But I believe that article (1 of the three I posted...) mirrors a different article on Wikipedia than this one nominated, but one that is also related to this car line? So merging those two would make more sense than deleting either in my opinion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the car did go on from being a concept car, it became a racing car for its own one-make series. Kyosho even made a RC car of it which a friend used to own. Donnie Park (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the limited number of sources is an issue, but there are enough to confirm its existence and confirm the basic details; I just added a 1987 German newspaper article as a source for a partially-filled in infobox about the vehicle. There's enough to suggest its notability and influence, and it's in decent enough shape that future editors can improve it using offline sources or the inevitable expansion of more free archives by Google and others. 68.167.253.27 (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Even without an significant actual production run, it appears to be notable. If there were actual cars produced, then certainly. DGG (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixing

Disputed (endorsed) PROD. Non-notable neologism. 9Nak (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, no references.--Iner22 (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds cool, but I couldn't find any hint of the term in reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO. Used to be called "surfing". Drawn Some (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 07:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JuJube (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:MADEUP as no references found anywhere. Jll (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism.--Unionhawk ^Talk 18:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Gibbs (animator)

Notability: few google hits, two of the edits correlate with someone who also edits DreamWorks pages; vanity, vanity, all is vanity. moof (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, hoax? Hekerui (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say speedy as there is no indication of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question How many animators are there on those films? What makes this guy notable? Dream Focus 01:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar balls

Article has been nominated for speedy delete and {prod} by different users and I think it should be discussed. I don't know about "sugar balls" but can find reference to them [here] [here] [here] there is reference to the god Ganesh eating sugar balls and but also articles on the internet refer to him eating Laddoo so it is very possible sugar balls are Laddu but there are other indian sweets rolled into balls so someone maybe be able to advise. Holkingers (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Laddu and redirect. "Sugar balls" is perhaps not the best translation to English. (Yes, I snickered.) Drawn Some (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it This article is at least as notable as Chocolate balls and a lot tastier. Google pulls up many hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk • contribs) 23:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ More expertise is needed. But I've been informed that people don't give laddu when they fall in love, although they are given on happy occassions, including the birth of a child. And that the writing in Hindi for this article is "Cheeni Genden", which literally means "sugar balls". (cheeni - sugar, gend - ball, genden the plural of gend). So it seems like ummm it could be something. Let's all do more checking and see what we can come up with. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are certainly sugary ball desserts including galub jamun and laddoo, but the content of this article seems bogus and I can't find anything suggesting it's accurate online and the terminology "sugar balls" doesn't seem standard. So I would perhaps boldly redirect to Indian sweets and leave it at that. But deleting works okay too. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search of "sugar ball" (in quotes) shows nothing remotely related to this article, sugar balls in India, or laddu. A google book search is even worse, in which "sugar ball" relates entirely to dendrimers, chemistry, and a piece of land in the U.S. Priyanath ^talk 16:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Priyanath notes, there are no sources that indicate "sugar balls" is a name of any particular Indian dish, and most of the article is certainly WP:OR/idiosyncratic family lore. Merging with Laddu is also unjustified, since I have yet to see any reliable source refer to laddus as sugar balls (which would be akin to calling cakes "baked sugar"). Abecedare (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep This afd was created by an SPA and initially said nothing but "don't". The IP has been trying in vain to argue for deletion when there is clear evidence of notability. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baader-Meinhof phenomenon

don't

it's a neologism... get rid of it. 67.198.55.10 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is well documented.[8] Is this a joke? Edit: The page could certainly use more citations though. --99.175.64.134 (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well-documented by whom? Anywhere I see either is a link to or cites Wikipedia or the damn-interesting article. Both refer to a very specific coining by a single entry at a medium-sized newspaper's bulletin board from 1986. Since it has been reinforced by links and references to Wikipedia and Damn Interesting. the only reason it has gained any prominence is because people notice the phrase with the type of salience that the term attempts to describe. There are already entries for similar "phenomena" and cognitive biases with more established origins. Wikipedia does not get to be a citation unto itself. Corroboration from one other website and a long-defunct bulletin board is hardly authoritative or grants this terminology the type of significance to warrant a wiki entry. I am not a Wikipedian, but I know a neologism when I see one, and I know Wikipedia avoids entries that are unnotable neologisms. 67.198.55.10 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you remove damn interesting and wikipedia from that same search it starts to come up very empty of references to this purported phenomenon: [9]

Keep; If a neologism, it's a notable one. It's strange how I hear this mentioned somewhere, and within a day or two I'm seeing it again in my watchlist, where it's slumbered for months. htom (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; The term is referred to frequently on talk-radio show/podcast "TBTL" on Seattle's KIRO 97.3 FM IMHO, this demonstrates that it's part of common parlance even if it is a neologism. I came to wikipedia to find out what it meant - where am I going to go if the article is deleted? Charliearcuri (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I'm not sure, but I think nominating articles for deletion is limited to registered users only--Unionhawk ^Talk 14:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term seems to be a neologism and might be more appropriately defined with a wiktionary article. The most convincing argument that it is notable enough to keep is its usage in a radio talk show, and the salience of the term itself. However, the term seems to be salient only because noticing of the term is an example of what the term attempts to describe. There is no scientific literature on the "phenomenon" and no notable reference in popular culture outside of internet posts : "Listen to this term I just learned because I read about it on DamnInteresting.com (or a site with a link to DamnInteresting.com) and verified its significance through Wikipedia (or a site that linked to Wikipedia)" types of references. It is an infrequency illusion. There is already an articles on salience. There are also articles on synchronicity, serendipity and coincidence. Perhaps a merge with one of these articles would be more appropriate than deletion... if so, I would suggest "coincidence."

It seems that the term itself has been elevated beyond its actual significance by the nature of the term itself and wikipedia's ability to artificially reinforce a false sense of importance via inappropriate editorial decisions. Cnkimpel (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Department Store

`Unreferenced for nearly three years, fails verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep There do seem to be plenty of sources however bad the article might be [10]. Hobit (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand per Hobit's sources. Plenty of non-trivial coverage, and probably even more centering around its merger with Gottschalks, another notable chain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., why is it that all the retail articles on Wikipedia suck? Quit slacking off, people. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not just retail; business articles in general. Our weakest area. DGG (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides country music (hint hint). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep nom by a single purpose account (literally). (NAC)--Unionhawk ^Talk 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saddle Rock-Malibu AVA

Spam. Not Notable. --Addedemptylatd (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Article contains sources and asserts notability. I fail to see how it's spammy, and I think this nom smells a little fishy given that it's the user's first edit. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goravan Reservation/ Goravan state nature reservation

Non notable reservation; Google returns less than 159 hits, almost none of which relate to this topic. I'^mperator 12:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A7. Not notable, and doesn't even try to prove notability--Unionhawk ^Talk 12:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have nominated it as A7, but it only applies for real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.. Cheers. I'^mperator 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G7 (multiple times). Failing that, delete this article and Goravan state nature reservation (the author's replacement) per nom, Unionhawk, and comment by ImperatorExercitus. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found some useful refs (under the name "Sands of Goravan"), and will add some of those. Tim Ross (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The references in Goravan state nature reservation establish notability. The article needs inline citations and it has some problems that appear to be due to being written/translated by a nonnative speaker of English, but those aren't reasons to delete it. This ecosystem and its associated protected area surely are notable. --Orlady (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Goravan State Nature Reservation. Nature Reservations are, I think, inherently notable, but we don't need two articles. I've added co-ordinates and another reference.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All government-designated natural reservations are notable just like all government-designated historic landmarks are. You would have to prove that it isn't, not challenge others to prove that it is. The designation alone establishes notability, just like winning a Grammy or a Nobel. Drawn Some (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Sands of Goravan per this on pg. 194 from the Ministry of Nature Protection of the Rep of Armenia's Third National Report; per this on pg. 14 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; and per this from the grida/UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) website. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmm... I'm not convinced about the proposed renaming. (Clearly a rename is needed, if only to fix capitalization, but I don't think "Sands of Goravan" is the right name.) All of these names are translations from Armenian, so some variance is to be expected. However, looking at all sources, it appears to me that "Reservation" or "State Reservation" is a part of the official name. The 2004 government of Armenia document on "Specially Protected Nature Areas of Armenia",[11] which looks like the most official source, calls it (on page 45) "Goravan Reservation". Page 194 of the 2006 government of Armenia report that you cite refers to the "'Sands of Goravan' reservation". The UN Economic Commission report you cite actually calls it the "Sands of Goravan Reservation" (the sentence refers to "the Margahovit, Juniper forests, Sands of Goravan and Caucasian Rose-bay Reservations"). Similarly, the UNEP website[12] entry says just "Sands of Goravan", but that's part of a list entitled "List of State Reservations," which indicates to me that "State Reservation" probably is an implied part of the name, making the full name "Sands of Goravan State Reservation." Based on what I've seen, I'd go with Goravan State Reservation or possibly Sands of Goravan State Reservation. Has the article's creator weighed in yet? --Orlady (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi, thanks for all your valuable comments and suggenstions! As Orlady mentioned above, there is indeed no agreement on the English name. The brochure, published by the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia (Khanjyan, Nazik. 2004. Specially protected nature areas of armenia. Ministry of Nature Protection, Rep. Armenia) i referred to, translates it as Goravan Reresvation, but in another place, says Sand of Goravan State Reservation. I guess the most appropriate name would be indeed "Sands of Goravan" State Nature Reservation. Please consider movement if appropriate. Another issue that bothers me, is that there is no agreement on the English name for the former USSR "zakaznik" regime. Such terms as reserve, preserve, reservation, refuge or sanctuary are used interchangeably in numerous sources as well as throughout Wiki. I have a plan to write articles on specially protected nature areas of Armenia and would research this issue more, in order to introduce some unification in this issue. I would really appreciate any help or suggestions.

Regarding wheather to Keep or Delete, i strongly believe that any kind of specially protected areas are notable by definition, otherwise they wouldn't be specially protected. Google gives less than 159 hits, since the knowledge about nature in Armenia and in the Caucasus in general is not widely reflected in the Internet. And in my opinion, this is not the reason to delete an article, but on the contrary, keep it and improve it, promoting popularization and dissemination of knowledge which is not yet widely presented on the internet. Thank you once again for you help. --Lusinemarg 11:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep specially protected areas are indeed always notable. Any problems, including duplicationofcontent, can be dealt with by editing. DGG (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A low number of google hits is not a valid reason to delete. What really matters is the content of those pages. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutoh Europe nv

Per discussion at DRV [13] this article has been restored and listed at AFD to allow a discussion of sourcing. As this listing is a procedural action by the admin closing the DRV, no opinion on the article is offered. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. No evidence at all of third-party coverage, let alone substantial third-party coverage in reliable sources. I'm adding Intelligent Interweaving technology to this AfD, as it's just a brand name of this company. Tevildo (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutoh Europe nv sells products to the sign industry, third-party coverage is done by sign related sites. It's not a mainstream product because of it's specialized usage. So the online sources are limited, but the company has a fair market share in it's industry. It's important within it's industry, so that makes it notable. The I² technology is not just a brand, it's an innovation much like the iPod wheel interface when first released on the iPod. It makes that prints are of a higher quality and it's invented by the company, thus they get the credit. Again it's of importance for the sign industry. .IT (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It's important within it's industry, so that makes it notable." I'm afraid you need to _prove_ that it's important in the industry, rather than just _asserting_ it. We need substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources, not just press releases. Tevildo (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, it's hard to find online resources on the sign industry. Most coverage is done in magazines, which rarely publish their articles freely on their websites or trade shows and then it's again a press release just like here. This makes proving me point to you difficult. It's not a standerized product for mass market, so the coverage is limited to the things mentioned above. .IT (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That, unfortunately, means that it can't pass our notability guidelines. The firm I work for (which I hope you'll forgive me for not naming) is a major player in our particular field of industry, but virtually unknown outside it, and it therefore doesn't have an article. Mutoh seems to be in the same position. Tevildo (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for: Mimaki, Roland and Océ. Their merit is questionable too. However I²'s relevance is for the entire printing industry as it deals with bleeding and banding. Mutoh Europe nv is the company behind an innovative technology, it also has in some segments of it's industry a 30% market share. Sure the general public doesn't know the brand, but which printers do you think make the large ad's like those of the release of the iPhone. This is an enclopedia and because one brand is only known to a specific industry, shouldn't mean it shouldn't be included. Only a hand few people know certain species of animals excist, is that a reason not to include them? I am dissapointed wich such an argument. .IT (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reference rules don't require that resources are available online, only that they exist. Kate (talk) 16:34, 6 May 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 12:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable. I would move the aritcle to Mutoh Holdings and include this unit in a broader article there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there are apparently awards. Probably move and expand as CoM suggests. DGG (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPSC Geography Syllabus

Delete A specific syllabus should not have a place in Wikipedia. Not notable, and too narrow a scope Dougofborg^(talk) 12:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is either Original Research or a copy-and-paste job. Resurr Section (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: FYI This is the syllabus for one subject in the UPSC Exam, the entry point for any aspirant into India's administrative services. Does't deserve a WP article. --Deepak D'Souza 12:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic. Salih (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not encyclopedic and there appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia as a webhost for the syllabus's index. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Conway Stewart. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steinway Fountain Pen

Article doesn't appear to meet WP:N. A search for sources on Google news revealed nothing with this specific name; nothing came up on scholar; and a general search reveals promotional links from the company and this Wikipedia article. The only source cited on the page appears to be a website where you can buy the fountain pen. It might meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but I thought it better to err on the side of caution in case it has some special prominence I've overlooked. Alexrexpvt (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – to Conway Stewart under Models 1990’s to present, as they are the actual manufacturers of the item. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect – to Conway Stewart and maybe include a link from the Steinway page.THD3 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if reliable independent references exist for verifiability or delete if they do not. Drawn Some (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Conway Stewart. The Steinway pen is already mentioned in Conway Stewart, therefore this article should be merged to the Conway Stewart article. Fanoftheworld (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afl challenge (psp)

Non-notable computer game Passportguy (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- though article is currently weak, game is covered in several articles including [14], and [15] Dialectric (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although a weak article, i did a little cleanup. For a future game it seems to have received some attention (per above) which would pull it away from being non-notable. Salavat (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One news article is not the attention an article needs to be created. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the article has already been created, plus the release is only like two months away. Its bound to get reviews as with most video games these days and would seem to be pointless deleting the article. Its not like its a game that is so far of in the future that it could end up not happening. Salavat (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Salavat. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 16:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since a simple Google search clearly shows that the unreleased game is sufficiently notable, I fail to see any reason in this AFD nomination. Why didn't you just tag it with {{Refimprove}}?

Random results from http://www.google.com/search?q=AFL+Challenge+PSP :

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/05/first-look-at-afl-challenge-for-psp/

http://www.qj.net/AFL-Challenge-and-Rugby-League-Challenge-confirmed-for-the-PSP/pg/49/aid/131071

http://pspupdates.qj.net/AFL-Challenge/cid/5651

http://psp.ign.com/objects/143/14347503.html

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/76306/default.aspx

http://www.gamespot.com/psp/sports/aflchallenge/index.html — Rankiri (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A reason why this might be viewed as insignificant is because AFL is not played as widely as soccer, cricket or other truly international sports. However within Australia AFL games often get as high as 13% sales, for example on the PS-2 an AFL game was sold to 13% of those who bought PS-2's making it the highest selling PS-2 game in Australia. These games account for a significant portion of a significant market and they should not be deleted.--Senor Freebie (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as really, really blatant advertising: a Danish consulting firm focused on maximizing the use of a company's external resources and relationships, typically suppliers and outsourcing partners. TReLLIS' mission is to help clients to build strategically cooperative relationships to enhance and drive innovation and growth at their companies. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trellis (Company)

Non-notable company. As far as I can see, Google gives only links to unrelated companies with the same name elsewhere Passportguy (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed as per above Dougofborg^(talk) 12:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References provided only qualify as trivial. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Autobiographical article to promote a company. LittleOldMe (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Saluti

Contested prod; prod tag was removed without comment by the author, User:Deansaluti. Autobiography, fails notability, lack of signifant coverage in reliable, 2nd party sources. Some Google hits but it's all blogs and directories like LinkedIn. Two Google news hits, from 2002 and 2004, and coverage there is incidental rather than substantial. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. CEO of a company for which I am unable to find reliable sources despite a Google search, and the article shows no assertion of notability other than that for this man. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the article makes only a peripheral assertion of academic notability (by saying he was once a prof), I did check Web of Science for notable publications. The loosest criterion, "Author=(saluti d*)", turned up precisely one hit: ANALYSIS AND REDESIGN OF A MILITARY ORDERS PROCESSING SYSTEM (1986) by SHIMSHAK DG and SALUTI DJ, Comp. Ind. Eng. 10(3), 237-243. This paper has never been cited, moreover the db entry says that Shimshak is the corresponding author. I also double-checked notability from the commercial/business perspective (Google: 'saluti “process flow”') and indeed found it to be as Dawn Bard says: either "linkedin" pages, or pages whose URL begins with "saluticahn" (saluticahn.com/profile.asp, saluticahn.blogspot.com/, saluticahn.wordpress.com/, etc.). There appears to be an aspect of PR in this case too, for example the saluticahn.wordpress.com/ page says "[Dr. Dean Saluti] has published numerous articles and scholarly papers on “Process Flow,” and is considered a national authority on this subject" (emphasis mine), but this seems to be refuted by Web of Science. I think the verdict on this article is a clear-cut delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I don't think he's notable from an academic standpoint and as owner of a small consulting company.Johndowning (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Agricola44’s analysis, plus very low citation impact suggested by this search. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1. the fullest bio information seems to be at http://saluticahn.com/founder.asp. 2. WoS does not cover well the practical side of engineering, and especially not for someone working in the 70s and 80s. DGG (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an academic, he is not in a sub-field of engineering, but rather in MIS/operations research, which are usually seen as sub-fields of management/business. Agricola44’s analysis is right on target; the subject is definitely not notable.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article states: he received national recognition as an authority in the area of “process flow.” But although Google scholar has many highly cited papers on process flow, it has no hits for the conjunction of process flow with Saluti's last name and (like the other database searches described above) no other evidence of scholarly notability for Saluti. So although there is a claim in the article that could be construed as meeting WP:PROF #1, it doesn't seem to be borne out by the citation record. As for his company, the lack of hits for "Saluti Cahn" in Google News archive makes it clear enough that it is not notable and that his role as a principal of the company also does not make him notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAcademically practically no search results, company looks like normal "small business" (without judgement), all that is not notable according to WP standards. Delete. --Esinclair52 (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World sales and certifications for Mariah Carey

All the informations are already in the Mariah Carey discography and each album's articles. No other musical artist have a separate article like World sales and certifications for Mariah Carey. They all have only their discography pages and album pages. max24 (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information is already covered in her discography. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant and not a logical search term. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge these tables into the relevant articles for each album. The albums have their own tables, but these ones are better-formatted and more attractive to the eye, so we should keep these and discard the others.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to Wikipedia:Record charts, that's not how the tables should look like. And despite many sources, most of the numbers and certifications can not be confirmed there and are totally false. Max24 (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 09:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gumrok

Contested prod. I suspect that this television programme is either incredibly obscure or a hoax, as I have not been able to find anything whatsoever about it (or the Egyptian TV company that supposedly produces the programme) with a wide variety of searches, apart from this article. Previous versions of the article (diff) were even more unbelievable, but the IP address that removed the Prod tag has made the article sound somewhat more plausible.

I freely admit my skills with the Arabic language and script are zero, so I have not done any searching in that language, but if this was a notable programme, I'd expect a mention, in English, somewhere on the Internet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it's a hoax, it's gone. If it's genuine, it is still, by the article's own admission, probably too obscure to comply with WP:RS. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete APpears to be a joke. The character names are all food related unless I'm mistaken. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Babu

search on subject shows up nothing notable, unreferenced article written like an advert Hekerui (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. Alternatively, if there were an article on the movie (not sure if it's notable but seems to habe been released and all [16] also on IMdb.com) could be merged there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. The article contains several assertions to notability which might be useful if properly sourced... but one film and some (unsourced) teen competitions do not a notability make.[17][18]. Allowing that she has the "look" that sells, one might suppose she will have much more when the article is returned. But for now? Nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Schmidt,.--GDibyendu (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triumf Riza

fails WP:BIO. is only really known for his death, WP:ONEVENT [19]. probably just deserves a mention in Kosovo Police Service. LibStar (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Kosovo Police Service. Person is non-notable by himself. Cheers. I'^mperator 12:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable part of events and history. Seems like it should be renamed to the event (murder) or perhaps merged. But I don't think deletion would be a good outcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several other articles about police officers on wikipedia too. Why are none of them nominated for deletion too ? --Roaring Siren (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. Secondly, police officers would need to satisfy more than WP:ONEVENT to have their own article. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'd like to recommend the editor who nominated the article for deletion to Category:Murdered_American_police_officers where many of the articles such as Bruce McKay who (with due respect) also fails WP:ONEVENT. --Roaring Siren (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina – Estonia relations

random combination, no resident embassies. Not one bilateral agreement, and very minor trade Estonian govt says In 2006, Bosnia and Herzegovina ranked 89nd among Estonia’s trade partners. and Google news search shows almost nothing [20] LibStar (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing special or notable about these two countries' relations. Guy0307 (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically per nom. Another bilateral relations article for two countries that don't really have bilateral relations. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Not surprisingly, this is yet another non-notable bilateral relations that have little or no contact with each other. Cheers. I'^mperator 12:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first I thought this was a substitute for "The Weather in London" .... not only non-notable, but extraordinarily so. Collect (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of third-party sources establishing notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure to satisfy WP:N and because it is contrary to not a directory. Edison (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability from the primary ones given. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is the score of a baseball game before the game begins? Wrong, there's no score. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced stub of a relationship of so little import to its protagonists that they don't bother with embassies in each others capitals, and for which i can find no reliable sources that mention the relationship in any depth at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing whatsoever to imply any kind of notability- or any kind of relationship for that matter. Embassies are in Sweden and Bulgaria respectively. If a country considered another to be diplomatically important, surely it would at least put an embassy there? HJMitchell You rang? 15:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria–Pakistan relations

current article sounds like a press release as per WP:NOT#NEWS. vast majority of media coverage of 2 countries is with other countries [21] is there anything to prove notable relations like trade? [22] LibStar (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Muslim population and religious issues may connect them, but little else. Collect (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a press release is not a substitute for independent coverage, which is not forthcoming; fails WP:N. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Runs againstnot a directory. Also fails notability. Edison (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article is based around one news item from earlier this year. This fails WP:N because we are not a news source and there is no ongoing coverage that asserts the importance of the topic as a whole. Wholly non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A few seconds with Google uncovers this 10-page article. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting find, if only most bilateral relations had info like this! LibStar (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. I looked at this topic a few days ago and found nothing, my original purpose of coming here was to state a delete opinion. However I looked one more time and discovered a whole host of article I missed the first time. I see how the nom or anyone could have missed all these as they were buried in the google news search. So I will have to bode keep. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for many of these articles, as there are sources to be found from which they can be improved, or else merged. DGG (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; sufficient sources are available to establish notability. Smile a While (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Finally! An opportunity for me to display my inclusionist tendencies! The article could easily be improved per the efforts of Marcusmax, who has gone above and beyond due diligence. 16:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I've just completed a major expansion of the article. It's a far cry from the stub that was nominated. IT contains evidence of presidential meetings, diplomatic missions, trade delegations and military relations- all referenced to at least one WP:RS. No fewer than 18 separate references to reliable, third party sources. There is no disputing that there is a relationship and that it is notable. Thanks are due to Marcusmax by the way- most of the references I used came from the links he posted above! HJMitchell You rang? 19:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Closedmouth, an article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSD A7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Hennessey

Singer who has appeared in one special performance in japan, works as a an entertainment singer for a cruise line, plus has worked at several theatres. All in all does not seem to be sufficiently notable Passportguy (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject not notable. Hekerui (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally nn. Maybe even A7. Guy0307 (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this is a speedy candidate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Angola in Moscow

fails WP:ORG. WP:NOTDIR applies here too. No significant coverage of this [48] LibStar (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked for articles in Portuguese and Russian? WhisperToMe (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Malaysia in Moscow to List of diplomatic missions in Russia. The reason for this, is that the building is a Brezhnev-era building and there isn't anything that notable. The "organisation" however is entirely notable, but this belongs in Angola-Russia relations. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable building, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a directory, not a notable building, nothing to distinguish it from any other embassy anywhere else in the world. Why was this article created? --BlueSquadronRaven 22:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 06:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not as an article on the building, but as the host for a list of Angolan ambassadors to Soviet Union and Russia. If such an article already exists, they should be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep permanent diplomatic missions in all major countries are notable. Thearticle is for the mission, not merely the building, and the architectural quality of the building is irrelevant. DGG (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concur with DGG. This is the main diplomatic link between two countries, thus, it is notable- unless we should delete Embassy of Jamaica in Washington, D.C. or Embassy of France in Washington, D.C. or any of the many, many examples? HJMitchell You rang? 00:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted

Vitamin Treehouse

Non-notable company Passportguy (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you considered that vitamins are notable and treehouses are notable so their bilateral relations are naturally notable? Drawn Some (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7'd. Hope this is OK. Guy0307 (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted Author has removed the only claim to notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Watchtower Bible School of Gilead#Ministerial Training School6 May 2009. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ministerial Training School

Content duplicated at Watchtower Bible School of Gilead Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Watchtower Bible School of Gilead#Ministerial Training School where the content already resides. TerriersFan (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect duplicate coverage... ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Watchtower Bible School of Gilead#Ministerial Training School.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, with the possibility of recreating the page if the content ever gets develped enough to make that preferable. John Carter (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Summer Song (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Turner

Contested prod. Proposed for deletion because "Young artist who has competed in a lot of small local contests, but has so far not received any significant attention in reliable independent sources and fails WP:MUSIC." Prod removed because "this is an award winning artist". Article contains no awards that seem notable, no sources, and no other info (artists with whom she has worked, recordings, ...). Claire Turner is a rather common name, so Google searches give lots of unrelated hits. More specific hits give no results in Google News[49][50][51] and very little in Google[52][53][54], indicating the lack of noatbility of the awards and the artist. Fram (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the awards could be deemed to be major. Not notable at present. Quantpole (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to meet WP:MUSIC. If she's good, she'll come to the world's attention soon. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is subject not notable, but the article doesn't appear as though it will get any better. Dethlock99 (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Malaysia in Moscow

fails WP:ORG. simply being an embassy does not merit its own article. WP:NOTDIR also applies here. LibStar (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

: actually I would like to nominate all in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Diplomatic_missions_in_Moscow . They can all be covered in Diplomatic missions in Russia. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As you have nominated all of these articles, it is now clear that you are being absolutely discruptive. Embassy of Afghanistan in Moscow, Embassy of Armenia in Moscow, Embassy of France in Moscow, Embassy of Tanzania in Moscow, etc are all notable. Did you even bother to check a single one. You haven't consulted editors, you haven't consulted Wikiprojects, you are basically just being disruptive, and as I mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libya–Vanuatu relations, and only again not long ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France–Kiribati relations, you are evidently not even looking for sources, and as is evident by your nomination of ALL articles in that category, it is WP:TEDIOUS and WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Also, can I ask why you aren't following WP:AFD and notifying article creators (in this instance ME) of this AfD? I think it is now time that you have restrictions placed for the nominating of articles for AfD, because you are not following procedures which are in place. Enough is enough. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not a requirement that article creators be notified when articles are nominated for deletion - the wording at WP:AFD is "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." As you responded to this nomination within 30 minutes of it being listed, you appear either have the article watchlisted or monitor AfD regularly so no harm was done (I agree that it is good practice to notify article creators though, and I try to do this when I nominate articles for deletion). Could you please provide some sources which demonstrate the embassy's notability? I strongly oppose the casual mass-nomination of all the 79 embassy articles, especially as this includes very notable embassies such as those of the US and UK which have been the subject of many newspaper articles, non-fiction and fiction books, etc. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a personal attack. Please withdraw your remarks. Guy0307 (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Russavia, if I am disruptive then all the 50 odd articles I have nominated in recent week would be all kept. You have found 2 supposed examples of disruption, one of which I withdrew, how about the other 50 odd ones I nominated? About 70-80% of articles I've nominated have been deleted through AfD process, this is hardly disruptive. If you disagree with this, you can contest in deletion review. one could easily argue that a certain editor was WP:TEDIOUS and WP:DISRUPTIVE for creating 100s of useless X-Y articles, in fact this user was banned twice for this. As Nick-D says there is absolutely no requirement for a nominator to contact the article creator, no one in the history of Wikipedia has been blocked for not following this suggestion. Lastly, I am happy to nominate embassies individually for deletion and thus retract the group nomination. I ask that we can continue civilly on Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If it wasn't for Misha's big five day adventure in the countryside, most of these articles would be developed by now; so blame him for that part. However, now that the disruptive nomination of the entire category has now been stricken, and yes, I will stand by saying that such bulk nominations are disruptive, because as you said it could be taken to DRV, but that would not be required is one looked in the first place, I would suggest doing to this what I did to Embassy of Malta in Moscow, and that is Redirect this single article to List of diplomatic missions in Russia. If you aren't sure if a topic is notable or note, read WP:BEFORE (and actually implement parts of it, and do a search)...if that yields no results, consider if content can be merged at a relevant article, and if that isn't required, ask yourself would a redirect to another relevant article be warranted. For example, after research, this is a Brezhnev-era building, and isn't on a heritage register (like a huge amount of embassies in Moscow are - such as Embassy of Mali in Moscow [55] which you did the AfD and then undid), and hence by all rights it could be deleted, as it is here at AfD. But a better solution is to redirect it as mentioned above. Stop and think of what one is doing beforehand, perhaps consider raising concerns on the talk page if it isn't clear to yourself (and that is evident due to many nominations which have survived), and also perhaps notify the article creator and/or substantial editors on their talk page as to the AfD; not all editors keep articles on their watchlists (I only found this one by going thru the last 5 days of AfD nominations looking for those relations articles) and they may be able to provide insight that you can't see. A prime example is the Libya-Vanuatu article, that I posted on the talk page of only a couple of days previous with a source for use and which would further establish its notability, so it was lucky that this one was caught, because most editors seem to treat these discussions as a vote, and don't even bother looking for sources themselves; and use AfD as a last resort, not the rash way that it is obviously being done which somewhat causes responses as above. Can I ask that you not touch any other of these Russian embassy and bilateral relations article as yet (meaning not take to AfD), as for the last week I have been going thru some 85GB of date and collating it altogether in Zotero for placement in articles. Thanks. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is only your opinion it is disruptive, in many cases I've checked Foreign ministry websites and undertaken Google news searches. Most of my AfD nominations have been deleted, and since most that I have nominated have been created from a now banned editor, how do I contact such a person? and no I don't send every single bilateral or embassy article to deletion. but I am happy to not touch Russian embassy articles for the meanwhile. I will still nominate bilateral articles in the meantime but I will say the rate of this will slow, as many of the most obvious non-notable ones have been deleted now. you should note that I have created about 6 new bilateral articles and intend to create more. LibStar (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should make it quite clear that the bulk nomination is what I called disruptive, and I am sure you can recognise why one would call it that, given the existence of what is in the category already. Many of these missions are located in heritage buildings in Moscow and Saint Petersburg; we even have an article (which I wrote) on a no longer existent Embassy of Germany in Saint Petersburg. Even the Residence of the Ambassador of the United States in Moscow is notable (as are quite a few other ambassadorial residences). Anyway, I have retracted the comments above due to the striking of the blanket nomination. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, or really of being of any significance as a building. Foreign relations issues shouldn't be dealt with in this type of article, so notability of Malaysian-Russina relations shouldn't factor here. Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedeia is not a directory of non-notable office buildings. There is no inherent notability for embassies. Edison (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it is absolutely absurd that we are literally, destroying pages that are involved with WikiProject International relations, we already are in the process of removing hundreds of "x-y relations" stubs and now we are doing the same to embassies as well. I support many of LibStar's nominations but not this one. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's an ugly office building like thousands of others. No multiple, reliable, in-depth sources ascribe any notability thereto. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Russia, as it is a likely search term, and it is better that we have such terms redirecting somewhere and that is the best place for redirecting to. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 06:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep permanent diplomatic missions in major countries are notable.DGG (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with DGG. All other similar articles should be kept too. Please compare with Branham House (Scott County, Kentucky). This is an article about a single house, and there are many such articles.Biophys (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as per DGG. --Miacek (t) 10:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe I am conditioned by my interests and experiences, but I feel that any place flying a foreign flag and being sort of "extraterritorial" is obviously "interesting", even if not formally "notable". Therefore I am sympathetic with DGG and Biophys's view that, even if not all embassies are inherently notable, most are. Typically, each embassy is at least mentioned in multiple sources (such as numerous guidebooks and on-line directories), serves as the location of various official or unofficial events (from diplomatic reception to protest demonstrations), often is a focal point for the local expat community, and is of some importance for the diplomats' sending country. The existence of each one results from a particular international agreement, which is presumably published in the nation's equivalent of something like Federal Register, and certainly reported in local media. True, this particular mission seems to be on the low end of the "media interest" scale (Google claims some 2000 hits for Russian search terms, малайзийское посольство в москве, but those are mostly information one-liners from travel advisories and a few fairly boring news stories). Still, I would think that the notability potential exists - and if someone did a bit of good work by creating a stub article and actually taking a photo for it, deleting it is rather pointless. Vmenkov (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vmenkov says "each embassy is at least mentioned in multiple sources (such as numerous guidebooks and on-line directories" then that falls under WP:NOTDIR, we shouldn't have an article if all we can find through web searches is its address. If an embassy has been subject to notable protests or diplomatic visits then it should naturally receive significant third party coverage and meet WP:N. Just because something exists does not mean it's notable. LibStar (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even for this admittedly "low-profile" embassy it often is not just the address (and business hours) - there are articles discussing the consular procedures (e.g., "Malaysia generally issues such-and-such types of tourist visas, but the Moscow embassy does not, because Russian citizens are eligible for a short-stay visa on arrival"), minor cultural events ("Ms. so-and-so teaches a Malay dance class") etc. Fortunately, nobody in Russia has reasons to protest against Malaysia, so nothing like what happend around Danish missions a few years ago, or around Sri Lankan embasssies now.

I have taken a look at the well-designed article List of diplomatic missions in Russia, and agree that it is possible to merge a "minor" embassy article like this into the "list" article without information loss; therefore I don't object to the Merge/Redirect proposal in this and similar cases. But, in any event, I believe that for all such "minor" missions it is highly useful to have all this basic information and photo handy (even if as a part of the "list" article), in case some event happens that generates more news and calls for the re-creation of the article. It seems to me that even a minor country's diplomatic mission has a much greater potential for generating international news than, say, an average high school. (I don't know if we have a policy that says that every HS is inherently notable, but it seems that at least in Indiana they behave as if they were). Vmenkov (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Permanent diplomatic missions between major countries have a strong claim of inherent notability and additional available material should be used to expand the article. Alansohn (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. DGG took the words right out of my mouth, and not for the first time. Embassies in major countries are notable. Russia is a major country. Malaysia, arguable. I would be inclined to question what the desired outcome is of nominating every embassy article in sight for deletion. I wouldn't say it's disruptive, but it's not too far off. HJMitchell You rang? 00:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan–Ireland relations

another random combination. non resident embassies. seems like their only relationship is on the football field [56] LibStar (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extraordinarily non-notable. Collect (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage and failure to meet WP:N. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:N and WP:NOTDIR. Edison (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cookie-cutter stub using primary sources only to assert non-notability. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nada to see here. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why should I withdraw the nomination when there is a clear consensus developing here? LibStar (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unsourced stub of no established notability and none establishable by me since i fail to find any reliable sources that discuss this relationship in the depth to meet any of our notability guidelines. An additional list of non-notable unsourced content doesn't obviate the need to get rid of the unsourced, non-notable content at hand.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be a strange pattern emerging with the Ireland-XYZ relations articles in that an unusually high number of them are being deleted- most of them, rightly so, but I would urge caution- babies and bathwater and all that. This particular article makes no assertion of notability and the only pertinent fact is that neither has even bothered too install an embassy in t'other. Very important relationship! HJMitchell You rang? 00:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paraguay–Switzerland relations

whilst the 2 countries have embassies, the Swiss Govt doesn't say much about their relations [57]. also Google news search doesn't show much either [58] LibStar (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite insufficiently notable. Only 3000 more combinations to go. Collect (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's an old relationship, but only because these two countries are quite old; in terms of multiple, independent sources - no, so fails WP:N. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning at the other random country relations combinations... are we seriously going to have to do this over and over again?--Unionhawk ^Talk 17:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails not a directory and notability. Previous AFDs have shown that the community does not automatically grant inherent notability to the diplomatic relations of all countries. Edison (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- cant find any reliable sources. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no ongoing coverage, no notability. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More absurdity. Per above. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why should I withdraw when every single person has voted delete so far? LibStar (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unsourced stub of no established notability and none establishable by me since i fail to find any reliable sources that discuss this relationship in the depth to meet any of our notability guidelines. An additional list of non-notable unsourced content doesn't obviate the need to get rid of the unsourced, non-notable content at hand.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just not notable- there was a relationship of some significance but there hasn't been anything that's well documented since the wars. HJMitchell You rang? 00:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dezfoolian

I don't see this article fitting criteria for inclusion. gordonrox24 (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if the article can't even stay on the one topic, it's probably not a great candidate for an article. Google search pulled only 1,140 results for "Dezfoolian", far less than I would expect for a "semi common surname", and none of those results were any sort of reliable source establishing the history of the name or anything that could be used to source an article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of every "semi-common surname." Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HWF

I cannot find any reliable third party sources to reinforce the claims of notability from the article. Strong suspicion this falls under WP:NFT. ∗ \ / (⁂) 06:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems real, if not particularly notable, though I didn't try very hard:

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

In the unlikely event this is kept, it should probably be moved and HWF turned into a dab page for Hindu Writers' Forum, Hamburgische Gesellschaft für Wirtschaftsförderung, etc. cab (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's obviously an E-fed of some kind. Afkatk (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Spammy. I could hear that Vince guy the announcer as I read the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable and may even be a hoax, I get no info on the "Maori Maniac". Drawn Some (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [59] I assure you its an efed. Afkatk (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE Definitely a hoax and completely fake. Article creator extremely suspect as well. !! Justa Punk !! 02:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Extremely fake.--WillC 21:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japan–Lebanon relations

minor relations, minor level of trade (given that Japan exports to almost everywhere) Interesting to note: "Number of Japanese nationals residing in Lebanon: 72 (October 2007) Number of Lebanese nationals residing in Japan: 98 (December 2007) " http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/middle_e/lebanon/index.html LibStar (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Yet another disruptive nomination where the nominator has not even consulted WP:BEFORE. Ever here of the Japanese Red Army? Will an admin please put User:LibStar under restrictions for the nominating of articles for AfD. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As Japan is a major power its bilateral relations with any other nation are inherently notable--even if, as may be the case here, there is not that much to say about them. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple, independent, in-depth sources are found. Russavia, what would you like this article to say? "Japan and Lebanon have had just one notable intersection in their history, the Japanese Red Army. For more information, see that article"? That's called content forking. TallNapoleon, aside from the fact that several Japan-X relations articles have been deleted, the fact is we still can't presume notability, especially when the one salient fact - embassies - is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Japan & Lebanon. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mention trade numbers (I'm sure they're to be found somewhere, although I don't have time to do it myself) and the Red Army, plus maybe if Japanese citizens were evacuated or anything during the Lebanese Civil War or the Israeli-Lebanon war. That's enough for a stub. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have this for trade. The ~$5 million Lebanon exports to Japan is what we call a drop in the ocean, Japan having an economy of $4.2 trillion, and even in Lebanon's $44 billion economy, the ~$300 million in imports is just 0.7%. And yeah, there were 45 Japanese in Lebanon in 2006 (which could be noted on this pretty inane list, or on this one). But really, this just seems fairly trivial material we're trying to stick in here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the other side of the world, not enough independent and reliable sources with significant content about the diplomatic relations of these two countries. Organizationally, better to mention in "Foreign relations of Lebananon" and "Foreign relations of Japan articles" or sections if somehow they can be shown to have had extensive military, trade, or cultural ties. Seems highly doubtful. Not enough here to satisfy WP:N, so only directory-type listing. Edison (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't help but wonder why nobody has looked for sources yet. Look at all these sources that I have found regarding the relations between these two countries, [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]. Thats 17 sources I found with a click of a button, 17 that could easily be used to justify relations. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your articles above are trivial. some of the above articles relate to Japanese Red Army rather than bilateral relations. A foreign minister visiting another country happens all the time. This article says Lebanon would try to borrow money from Japan, don't less developed countries always try to borrow from the richest nations? And you're really scraping the barrel with this article, the only mention of Japan is the vehicle used in the bombing was stolen from Japan!!. how is that a basis of notable bilateral relations? LibStar (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off anytime two dignitaries meet each other that is called "relations", if two heads of state meet then it is "relations". The reason that meetings between two leaders happen all the time is because they are having meetings on there "diplomatic relations". If I am not mistaken that is what this article is about, it is about the relations between the two and minister visits are relations. In regards to the red army that is also relations in work, Lebanon did not have to extradite the prisoners to Japan but after many negotiations between the two countries an agreement was made. Once again that is diplomatic relations, not trivial whatsoever. The whole trivial argument is getting kind of old don't you think, 17 references showing that there are relations between the two is not trivial it is showing something is there. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SYNTH - relations are what reliable sources say they are, not what you declare them to be. And they are certainly (except on the trivial level) not about foreign ministers' visits, which happen literally every week of every year, yet pass unnoticed on Wikipedia, except in this series of nonsense articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17 references? how does a truck stolen from Japan prove diplomatic relations? trying to borrow money which every less developed country tries to do? and this article from 1958 hardly proves notable bilateral relations. also, some of these references are applicable to Japanese Red Army article not here. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Sources - In light of some of the complaints about my other perfectly fine sources I will throw in some more, My first source is an excerpt from an old BBC article the title reads Japanese envoy arrives in Lebanon for talks on detainees, bilateral relations the term bilateral relations sticks out because that is what this afd in question is about[77]. Lets move on to the Red Army, in this article a senior Japanese Foreign Ministry Official is quoted saying, "We have information from reliable sources, and we know that the possibility (of the arrests) is very high. Having come so far, it is distressing to be told that there are no Japanese," so the government of Japan contacted Lebanon (obvious relations) and were distressed by what they were told[78]. And finally this New York Times article gives a nice run down on the issues between Japan and Lebanon during the crisis[79]. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dozens of sources for this one. That opposite ends of the world is a guarantee or even presumption of non-notability, was outdated a good while ago. DGG (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We already have articles on the Foreign relations of Japan and the Foreign relations of Lebanon. There's no reason to scatter things further and split things into three articles instead of 2. Any additional relations found should go into an existing article, not a new one. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: For those who support merge, which article should the redirect point to? TallNapoleon (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Foreign relations of Lebanon - Japan's impact on Lebanon, though small, is larger than Lebanon's impact on Japan. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per numerous sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Insufficiently notable for its own article. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How so, independent sources establish notability. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced stub of no established notability and none establishable by me since i fail to find any reliable sources that discuss this relationship in the depth to meet any of our notability guidelines. An additional list of non-notable unsourced content doesn't obviate the need to get rid of the unsourced, non-notable content at hand.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I clicked, read and analysed every single one of the sources provided above. There is evidence of some relationship, but nothing of significance. It just so happens Japan has an interest in Middle East peace, which means it has to interact with all countries concerned. These relations are not notable in their own right- perhaps we could have an article for "Japan- Middle East relations" though I think the material is probably better documented elsewhere. HJMitchell You rang? 00:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Paul West

Article does not demonstrate the notability of the subject. In particular, West as an author, filmmaker or photographer is not shown to have achieved the critical attention of his peers. Moreover, the article is not verified through multiple independent sources and rests exclusively on the claims of the subject's websites. A search for his novels discloses that only one is commercially available and that is exclusively through Amazon.com. Less information is available publicly for the claims of notability as a filmmaker or photographer. The article appears to be autobiographical and written primarily by a single editor who has repeatedly removed requests for improvement. TheMindsEye (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no notability demonstrated. Giant Snowman 18:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the thorough nomination, this person would not appear to meet the WP:CREATIVE notability guidelines at the present time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Mittell

The only third-party source is an article primarily about the Middlebury College Wikipedia ban (two paragraphs relay Mittell's views on that matter); no third-party sources attest to his notability as an academic, and this person has requested on the article talk page that the article be deleted because he did not think he was notable. His identity as the one asking for deletion is confirmed by a new article mention his request, http://mondediplo.com/2009/05/15wikipedia , which also discuss why we have an article on Mittell even though he doesn't actually meet the notability threshold: namely, because he has been in the news for Wikipedia-related matters. (I PRODded this article and it was contested.) ragesoss (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People are either notable or they aren't. They don't get to decide for themselves. Drawn Some (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Mittell is not notable. We only have an article about him because of some positions he took vis-a-vis Wikipedia and the Middlebury College story; almost the entire article is sourced from his faculty bio, and the one news source does give any indication that he is notable. He doesn't think he is notable, and I agree. But it's not so clear-cut that people are either notable or not; there are many borderline cases, and there are lots of articles that don't meet the letter of the notability guidelines but we nonetheless let stick around. In cases like this, when the subject points out that he doesn't think he is notable--and he is technically right--it makes sense to delete.--ragesoss (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The note on the talk page attributed to the subject of the piece was posted two years ago. Since then there has been another book published; it is not clear to me that his self-assessment from two years ago should be what this decision is based on. The PROD, posted earlier today, indicated that editor(s) who objected to it should go ahead and edit it - posting an AfD a few hours later seems rushed to me. Also, there's no indication that the reason his page exists is the Wikipedia related content - nor should that content be a disqualifier, when there are other notable achievements. Tvoz/talk 07:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to Tvoz, the article has improved somewhat. I still don't think the sources technically meet the thresholds of either the general notability criterion or Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but the subject now seems fine with his article existing so I'm happy to let the page be.--ragesoss (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it's particularly strong either - as I said, it "may be improvable". I guess we can see if anything more surfaces. Tvoz/talk 19:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In marginal cases I give much weight to the wishes of the LP. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Surprisingly Prof. Mittel is quite notable. It doesn't look like he is from this page, but it needs improved. His notability is within the field of television studies where he is likely going to be the next editor of a key journal, has written two very well received books. He's not just an up-and coming scholar, but has moved onto that to become one of the central people to talk to and about in regards to television. The article just needs citations and improvement. --Buridan (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, Genre and television: From cop shows to cartoons in American culture, currently in more than 320 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:PROF with book publication by major academic press.--ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep One book by OUP, though not yet it many libraries as it has just been published; several by Routledge, a major publisher in his subject of media studies, with many more holdings. a number of articles, and book chapters, including a chapter in Cambridge companion to narrative, a standard reference. However, the so-called reviews listed for his publications are descriptions, not evidence of notability, as one is from his own web page, the other a publisher's blurb. In this particular instance, there is particular reason not to give any credence to the desires of the subject, as he is known to not have a NPOV on the matter. DGG (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Shinigami. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shinigami in popular culture

This is just trivial listcruft at best. If there is any actual important notes: they belong in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose any merge into the "main" article. This article is distinct from the article Shinigami, and lumping a bunch of modern references that have no indication of significance of the popular perception of that legend gives an undue weight to the modern pop-culture navel gazing that I find disturbingly common. This article has a specific topic, and it should not be shoehorned into other, to the detriment of both. Deletion or keeping are both acceptable options, as long as the material is not allowed to worm its way back into Shinigami. Mintrick (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Shinigami article is small, so I see no good reason for why important pop culture notes (if there is any) shouldn't be listed there. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Size is the problem, if these dozens of references are dumped into the Shinigami article, they totally overshadow that article's purpose, and turn it into nothing more than a list of elementary allusions. If there are documented examples of fictional references that impact perception of the myth itself, then they can be moved. But this article has none of that. Mintrick (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The answer is to choose a few good verifiable examples, move them to the article, and delete the rest as useless trivia. If they are important they will have their own article and can link to the Shinigami article. If they are super-important then they can be in the article or under "See also". Creating a rubbish bin (in the form of a popular culture article) isn't the answer. Drawn Some (talk) 05:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced trivia. This sort of thing belongs on a fansite or something, not in an encyclopædia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I strongly oppose a merge due to the amount of data. I always thought that WP:TRIVIA deprecated "foo in popular culture" articles, let alone sections in articles, unless there's something notable, inherently or otherwise. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above (Lankiveil's and Dennis's). I share Mintrick's concern with dumping this trivia into the main article, but given how these popular things go, Drawn Some's answer will probably be followed, unfortunately, since editors contributing such references are often better at making lists longer rather than writing encyclopedically. Which reminds me: I need to check a batch of Old_Crow#Old_Crow_in_popular_culture. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and trim, popcultural references should appear in the main article. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, trim, and source as this article has no references at all, and gives no reason why shinigami appearing in popular culture is a notable topic at all. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Oda Mari (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Unbounded and unsourced list bound together by the new and novel concept that Shinigami compose a significant part of popular culture. --Allen3 ^talk 06:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh Articles on Japanese folklore and the inevitable and self-inflating in popular culture sections of these are the reason why I stopped bothering with editing articles on Wikipedia. Somebody above said good examples from the article should be moved to the Shinigami article. I did that, over a year ago when the pop-culture stuff was still in the main article - I deleted heaps upon heaps of insignificant stuff, leaving some notable examples and left an invisible note to editors to carefully consider whether whatever they are thinking of adding is really notable. It didn't take long before the article section was back to the pre-trimming size, again full of completely unimportant info. Personaly, I'd like to see some carefully selected anime/manga references in Japanese articles, but from what I've seen so far, such sections demand at least one editor to constantly hover over the article, deleting unnecessary additions as they appear; and, dear god, they do appear. I don't have the energy to deal with the fanboys anymore, myself. I say follow the Tengu or Kitsune example and simply purge pop-culture from the articles and kill all "in popular culture" sections in the bud. I say delete. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with heavy trimming into Shinigami. That shinigami continue to appear in popular culture is an important aspect of the concept of shinigami (thus showing they are a "live" concept, so to speak), and that article would not treat the subject encyclopedically without discussing this with examples. Pending anyone finding scholarly articles on how concepts of shinigami have been treated in popular culture, that subject is not in itself notable and should not be an independent article. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The articles will do better together, there is by no means too much material--since both the articles are basically primarily about the representations of this spirit in Japanese culture , I don't see the point in having the separate. DGG (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - should never have been split. completely arbitrary split. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

INSZoom

Non-notable company 448 gnews hits, which was originally created with as spam/COI. An independent editor has tried to save but no recent edits. Now seems to be more of an ad for SiliconIndia. JCutter (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nomination - I could locate no coverage of this company other than press releases and similar promotional material. The article is more of an advertisment than an encyclopædia article, and it will be no great loss to the project to delete it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Iowateen (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Never mind. Original nominator never came back around, so I'll just call it done. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Salomon

Shark96z tried to list this article at afd but didn't do it right. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no real reason given as to why we should delete this, and the article has fourteen references. For an article of that size, I'd have to say it's looking pretty good. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PCHS. The article is reasonably well sourced, and the subject is at least somewhat notable due to his marriages and relationships with various celebrities. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per a lack of a reason to delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Thailand relations

non resident embassies. trade is very small. only minor bilateral agreements. http://www.mfa.ee/eng/kat_176/7687.html LibStar (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - [80], [81], [82]. Found those three sources, but I am not sure that is enough as they seem a bit trivial in nature. So probably leaning delete but not made up yet. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent, in-depth coverage, which I couldn't find and is unlikely to exist. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the usual reasons. JJL (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial trade, political history, religious connections, treaties, not much at all in common. Collect (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning at other random country combos... Yeah, we are going to have to do this over and over again--Unionhawk ^Talk 17:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unresearched, un-secondary-sourced, cookie-cutter stub that nevertheless apparently requires a non-cookie-cutter explanation of how each and every one of these fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:NOTDIR. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced stub of no established notability and none establishable by me since i fail to find any reliable sources that discuss this relationship in the depth to meet any of our notability guidelines. An additional list of non-notable unsourced content doesn't obviate the need to get rid of the unsourced, non-notable content at hand.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke 'Ming' Flanagan

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Luke 'Ming' Flanagan

Contested Prod, Has won a local election, but doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources. He does not meet the general notability or the specific politician criteria. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Extremely minor candidate in elections, holds a seat of an minor (city of less than 3k) municipal counsel. Grandmartin11 (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - evidently I was looking at old information. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - This is simply false. I am not aware of him holding 'a seat of an minor (city of less than 3k) municipal counsel' (source?), he is a member of Roscommon County Council, (pop 58k), see here. He is by a wide margin nationally the best-know politician from Roscommon, and appears on local and national radio at least weekly if not more. See a single example here. His name returns 100k hits in Google, I checked the first 10 pages and they all referred to him.

By your standard, would you delete the article on Richard Boyd Barrett, who is an unsuccessful candidate for a position at the same level that he was elected for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzq99 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable politician with very little media coverage. Passportguy (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not Delete~~ (strike second vote) - Have you looked at the Google hits for his name? There are many, many pages from high-pageranked news sites. How do you define 'very little media coverage'? Tzq99 (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He seems to come a little close to notability for being something of a rabblerouser, but that seems to be all he does, and it doesn't quite cross any sort of a line that anyone can draw. If we can get some more reliable sources it'll change my mind. Tzq99, try those links for guidance for what we're looking for. I don't think the Elections Ireland site can be used, nor can breakingnews.ie - some better results would help immensely. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, exactly why are Breaking News (cited in 876 Wikipedia articles) and Elections Ireland (cited in 1230 articles) not acceptable in this article? There are dozens of stories available from web versions of printed national and local broadsheet newspapers, such as Roscommon Herald, Irish Times and Irish Independent. I am happy to copy and paste in the links here but it seems a bit excessive when I expect most people can use Google.

As to "something of a rabblerouser, but that seems to be all he does", that seems to go flatly against Wikipedia policy about deleting articles just because you don't like the subject. Either you are arguing that he features highly in the media or he doesn't, but it seems daft to argue both are reasons for deletion. Tzq99 (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, he does meet the "first-level sub-national" office holder criterion of WP:POLITICIAN by being a member of Roscommon County Council. (I have to admit, that even to a wild-eyed inclusionist like me, that being a member of a local council does seem a bit low as a threshold considering the powers of councillors in Ireland relative to other countries, but it is a first-level sub-national office.) There are enough reports out there in the press to verify details in the article, as verified and sourced they should be.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Irish politicians. I think "First-level sub-national office holder" in the Republic of Ireland would mean the leaders or chairmen of each County Council, not every single Councillor; and besides, there's just not enough encyclopaedic material on him to justify a separate article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 'Fraid not, Mayors, as they have been called for all City and County Councils forthe last couple of years (formerly Mayors for the Borough Councils and chairmen (or chairwomen) for the other councils) don't have any unique powers or role by virtue of office; they are essentially ceremonial roles and are elected by the council members every year. Mayors are meeters and greeters and cutters of ribbons at the moment; there were suggestions of making the Mayor of Dublin a more powerful position, but they seemd to have faded a bit. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has a very high media profile (and has had for many years) for a local councillor. The assertion that doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources is simply false. Snappy (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Verify Claims - I am concerned about the number of transparently false claims made by people arguing for a delete, and I would ask anyone not familiar with Irish politics to spend 10 seconds on Google verifying them for themselves, and also bear in mind that there is an election in the next month which may colour the judgement of people with a party affiliation about independent councillors. It is claimed on this page:

Extremely minor candidate in elections, holds a seat of an minor ... municipal counsel
Non-notable politician with very little media coverage
something of a rabblerouser, but that seems to be all he does

All of these can be found to false with a 10 second Google search, and I must ask if these assertions were made in good faith, where the authors got the information. I am not a big Wikipedia author, but the criteria for listing politicians seems to be fulfilling any one of the three criteria here. It is seems to me that the subject of this article meets all three. Tzq99 (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Buzz (Newspaper)

Non notable school newspaper. I searched "The Buzz SAR" and "The Buzz SAR school" and found nothing more than trivial coverage. Acebulf (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this over to SAR High School. This doesn't need its own article any more than the PCHS NJROTC unit or marching band, both of which would likely return more hits at Google or Excite search. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is entirely unreferenced and I am unable to find independent resources to confirm the information in the article. There is really nothing verifiable to merge. Drawn Some (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After stripping out all Wikipedia mirrors [83], I've come to the conclusion the information in this article cannot be verified and thus shouldn't be merged anywhere.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Luxembourg relations

non resident ambassadors. coverage of Croatia-Luxembourg is limited to Croatia-EU context. [84] LibStar (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent, significant coverage detailing this relationship. As LibStar hints, the EU holds a lot of meetings in Luxembourg, but this doesn't have to do with Luxembourg-Croatia relations as such. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the usual reasons. JJL (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another robostub directory listing about a nonnotable subject. Edison (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without shared embassies, there's no good reason to have a separate article about any potential relations (which have yet to be mentioned). Any information should be covered in an existing article like Foreign relations of Luxembourg or Foreign relations of Croatia when found. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absurd. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this relationship is ignored by reliable sources and the protoganists themselves (no embassies in respective capitals, even).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there even a relationship here? There does seem to be a precedent emerging for the Luxembourg articles- I've seen a few deleted over recent days and i see no reason why an exception should be made for this one. Minimal google news hits and all of those were coincidence of words, nothing that even begins to tackle the relationship. HJMitchell You rang? 00:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Party organization

Article has multiple issues that I believe cannot be resolved. Article appears to contain OR, is largely unreferenced, and language sounds like it was yoinked from a textbook. It is also incomplete. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely badly written unsourced Original Research. Arggh its bad. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree, this is more like a personal essay than an article. JIP | Talk 05:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Afkatk (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greeley West High School

Likely non-notable school. News hits on the school were not about the school itself. Samuel Tan 01:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Secondary schools are considered notable without consideration of their merits. Drawn Some (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no real accepted way to determine the notability of a school. All we have to go by are the other school related articles.Nomad2u2001 (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expand There must be a world of information about academic, demographic, and extracurricular statistics and possibly other noteworthy information for the school published in reliable sources on the internet if enough effort is put forth to find it. As an added note, however, I am not a big fan of the assumption that "secondary schools are considered notable without consideration of their merits" because, well, I don't see why a high school completed yesterday without any history of educating students should be kept over elementary schools and middle schools that have been in existence for a few years. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep although there's not exactly much content to keep...--Unionhawk ^Talk 02:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unionhawk just gave a perfect reason why it should be deleted. I'm not sure why there would be a "Weak Keep" with what you said, but this is obviously not notable enough for an article. If there was an article for every high school in the U.S. Wikipedia would be full of garbage. Anonymous ^Talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I rewrote the article to show it meets WP:N, not just supposed automatic inclusion standards for high schools. While it's true that the vast majority of news hits are trivial mentions, there were 500+ results on the search I checked (Newsbank) and several were just about the school. --Chiliad22 (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked over the article and there is absolutely nothing in it that separates this high school from every other high school in the U.S. There is no reason to have this article unless you plan on making a short, uninformative article about every other high school. Anonymous ^Talk

So these same 4 notable alumni graduated from every other HS in America and all other HSes in America were founded in 1966? Since you say there's absolutely nothing that separates this one from every other high school in the US... --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not these same four, but every high school has notable alumni so your four alumni still don't make this high school notable. And in regard to the next comment there are even more high schools with a lot more state title wins. Have you heard of Harlan High School in Harlan, Iowa? No, because it's not notable even though they've got 11 state title wins and have been in the state championship game 19 times. 5 of those championship games were in the past 10 years. That's just in football and doesn't include their wins in other sports. If this article doesn't get deleted I recommend someone create an article for this much more worthy school. Anonymous ^Talk

I fail to see how the fact that Harlan High School is notable shows Greeley West High School is not notable. If you think there should be an article on Harlan High School, feel free to start it. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to read. I very clearly said NEITHER school is notable. I was just using Harlan as an example of how NON-notable this other school is due to the fact that Harlan is much more notable and yet is still non-notable. Anonymous ^Talk

There's no need to make personal attacks. Just because you say the other school isn't notable doesn't mean that it isn't notable. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added information on 6 state title wins. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's several references there and we've kept high schools with a lot less. Personally I don't see the need for articles on every high school but after seeing several AfDs result in keep we'd be showing bias to delete this one, especially as it's better sourced than many others. Dpmuk (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other crap exists, doesn't mean you should throw your principles out of the window and keep something because deletion on similar material failed in the past.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referenced articles about high schools have been kept in many previous AFDs. There seems to be a presumption of notability for high schools and colleges, but not for primary (grade, elementary, middle) schools. Has references from Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News. Edison (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is clear systemic bias. Countries that have no high schools in their system are at a disadvantage by that line of thought. The Netherlands have a basisschool (elementary) and a middelbare school (middle school) before higher education. This shortsighted line of thinking means neither are considered inherently notable while other schools that are no different are. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education which says "Most elementary and middle schools that don't claim notability are now getting deleted in AfD, with high schools in most cases being kept.". What are examples of articles about Netherlands highschool-equivalent "middelbare," which have been deleted despite as many references as this article? Or were you just setting up a straw-man argument claiming nonexistent discrimination? If you want to create a notability guideline which sets the bar different from the actual defacto standard shown in AFD outcomes, see the failed efforts at Wikipedia:schools. Notability guidelines generally just restate the community consensus as expressed in actual AFDs, rather than enacting into law what a few editors feel the standard "should" be. The Netherlands Wikipedia article on Middelbare says they were secondary schools, (like high schools) but the term was replaced in the last quarter of the 20th century by "voortgezet onderwijs." Feel free to create referenced articles about any you are interested in. If you want to get right to work improving articles about Netherlands high schools, see Category:Secondary schools in the Netherlands, which contains 6 (mostly unreferenced) articles. Edison (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - state championship wins and multiple alumni are clear claims to notability. Sources available easily meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case nearly every high school in existence should be included on Wikipedia. Anonymous ^Talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I made the comment I did. No need to discuss it or waste time debating it or worrying over it. I see it's been listed for the school-anti-deletionists to comment. My suggestion now is to close the discussion as keep for WP:SNOW. Drawn Some (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SNOW Drawn Some (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a consensus that high schools are inherently notable.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No there's not. There's a consensus for things like deletion of articles about future music albums. No reasonable veteran Wikipedian opposes that idea. Schools are still plenty controversial, so they're a textbook example of something that has not got consensus. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Do you know of any examples of a high school-related AfD where the high school (a) verifiably existed and (b) was deleted at AfD at any time in the last year? I have a rather strong impression that high schools are only deleted in very exceptional circumstances.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, if I thought all high schools were inherently notable, there wouldn't have been any motivation for me to improve the article. It seems like just saying highschools inherently deserve articles encourages poor articles... there's no need to make them decent. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It scrapes a few points from the WP:BEEFSTEW criteria I use and has potential for getting more through expansion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - plenty of evidence of notability - notable alumni, championship sports teams, a Denver Post article, etc. Easily passes my standards. High schools are not per se notable, but almost all public high schools are so. (Small, new, parochial secondary schools, or those without any sports/music programs may not be notable.) Bearian (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previously established consensus is that all high schools are notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The practice that all secondary schools are notable is necessary in order to avoid discussing the merits of each at considerable length in order to weed out perhaps 10% or so that might not be. It just isn't worth it--especially considering that the error rate at AfD is almost certainly considerably higher than 10%. The argument that the assumed notability of high schools removes motivation to improve articles on them is as sensible as that the assumed notability of US senators removes the motivation to improve their articles. it's actually the other way: many people who wouldn't be able to begin articles come here, and would be able to improve them. DGG (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Well done to those who found sources and improved the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PureVolume

Non-notable website. Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Mikeblas (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as unreferenced spam. I tagged it for speedy. Drawn Some (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Declining speedy deletion for two reasons: the article has a long history with many editors, and it's already at WP:AfD. I believe I'm reading the consensus at WT:CSD right, especially at WT:CSD#Thoughts?, but tell me if I'm wrong. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is a popular music website that has launched musical careers such as Taking Back Sunday, My Chemical Romance, Brand New, and Fall Out Boy (from USA Today [85]). Has an alexa ranking in the top 10k. 100+ incoming links to the article. Article is merely poorly sourced, which can be remedied; there are a lot of sources out there. When I have time I'll improve the article. ~EdGl ★ 16:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can find enough third-party non-trivial references to support WP:VERIFY I'll be glad to change my opinion. I don't see them. Drawn Some (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the article I already posted, this says PV (PureVolume) helped Boys Like Girls to become popular, so does this, as well as calling PV "an important website." Passing references in the New York Times (here and here) show it's "up there" with MySpace. Many famous bands, musicians, and even record labels have "official PV pages," like they would have an "official Myspace page." Here's another source (reliable?) stating Tooth & Nail released music on PV: [86]. I could probably find more; is that enough to change your mind? ~EdGl ★ 18:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are trivial mentions except for the USA Today. The website needs to be the subject of the reference or otherwise play an important role in the article. Something can be well-known without being notable. Drawn Some (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article may be in poor shape, but I do not understand why people would recommend deleting. I am weary of people recommending things for deletion based on the article being of perceived substandard quality, and would prefer that they just be fixed. 129.64.213.33 (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep PureVolume seems to be worthy of an article here; it has apparently been mentioned by reliable sources, and http://mp3.about.com has an article about it. Whatever the result of this AfD, I recommend rewriting or losing the "Features" section because it makes the article look too much like an advertisement. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The offered "references" don't meet WP:REF because they're not substantial. The articles mention PureVolume, but don't describe it or substantiate it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. None of the references is substantial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Weak keep per the sources added, just barely makes it now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.This article in the LA Times explicitly discusses the site:[87]. In depth article in Boston Globe all about the site:[88]. USA Today already mentioned:[89]. Article in Pittsburgh Post Gazette discusses online music in general and PureVolume in more than passing:[90]. Brief mention in Newsweek:[91]. It has hundreds of other news mentions, and is mentioned in the same breath as MySpace and MTV. It is obviously notable; if it weren't notable, why are there so many news stories about bands being on it? I'd ask people to get better at Googling before you nominate articles for deletion or vote delete; AfD requires a good faith attempt to find sources, see WP:BEFORE. I'd not heard of it before this AfD, perhaps someone else can work these references into the article? Fences and windows (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also a dedicated article in Billboard:[92]. Fences and windows (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fences and windows found plenty of indepth coverage about the site. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I rewrote the page, using some of the sources Fences and windows graciously provided. I'm not finished, but I can't work on it anymore today. ~EdGl ★ 18:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for adding them in. I'm adding the others as non-inline references, ready to work them in. Fences and windows (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is now a decent article with three very solid reliable references and a non-promotional tone. Kudos to EdG1. Drawn Some (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NewsChomper

Non notable web service with no third party reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources for it, just yet another page of RSS feeds. Fences and windows (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Absolutely nothing of interest at Excite Search beyond the site itself and brief mentions at social networking sites like Twitter, Blogspot, and Kirtsy.com. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied per G2/A7. –xeno ^talk 03:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SnakeBIT

Page about probably fictional software, created by User:Betax and referring to his own userpage and his own unapproved bots. Anomie ⚔ 00:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 no credible claim of significance or importance Chzz ► 00:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered A7, but it does not seem to be about a real person, organization, or web content. Anomie ⚔ 02:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and A7. Also block the article creator (User:Betax). The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete doesn't even try to show notability.--Unionhawk ^Talk 01:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G2 LOL. Looks like a test page at first glance. Didn't even need to come to AfD. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After studying further, I'm thinking it wasn't a test page, but rather an article created by an inexperienced user that doesn't know that stuff like this belongs in one's userspace, not the main article space. It seems that the creator needs to study our policies further before proceeding to spring up more unauthorized bots and make unacceptable articles as this one. A7. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G2/A7 Made-up, user blocked, doesn't assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashé Journal

Non-notable, has not been discussed to a sufficient extent in independent reliable sources, in fact, barely mentioned at all. Earlier versions were solely spam- the spam may be cut down now but it's still not notable/mentioned in the press or other publications enough.[93][94]. The only news coverage is reviews of two other books, not Ashe itself, which happen to mention it in parts of the reviews which we cannot see. [95] . Only two scholarly works seemingly independent of Ashe mention it, for the one we can see it's solely as the whereabouts of a cite.[96]. Sticky Parkin 11:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as expected only LC has a copy. DGG (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger Dance

Page about a radio station's contest. No references. I spent a few minutes and looked for some without finding anything reliable other than primary. Also, subject's notability not demonstrated. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 01:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Also, the page is becoming an example of WP:NOT with all of the contest results, complete with contest brackets and all. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 01:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of significance or importance. Minor dance contest. Drawn Some (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There's nothing of interest at "What links here," not even the station's article. Perhaps the contest deserves a small mention at the station's article, but I see no reason for this to have its own article. Most of this should be axed. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not seem notable outside the radio station. The most of the article's contents are the contest result brackets. JIP | Talk 05:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find any sources that establish notability. Rnb (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Save. this seattle history must be saved!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeMcBob23 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer2mail

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable software. ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure if this is a reliable source:[97]. Also mentioned in a patent application:[98]. Cited by this article:[99]. Mentioned in this German book:[100]. Mentioned in a footnote:[101] Hmm... flimsy. Fences and windows (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Khurram Khan

orhpan, unreferenced and without notability for more than 3 months. -Xmhaoyu (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google Scholar search finds a very respectable number of papers and citations for a 2006 PhD, so the subject may well become notable in a few years if he keeps up the good work, but he doesn't appear to be there yet. I would very much doubt that a research group founded by a recent PhD and assistant professor is "one of the leading research groups in China". This claim needs high-quality sources if it to be accepted. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply does not meet any notability criteria. This is a strong delete.Johndowning (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai Badoiu

Nice autobiography there, but the subject is utterly lacking in the "significant coverage" in sources "independent of the subject" mandated by WP:GNG. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice autobiography but completly unnoteable. His only claim for noteability is the informatics link which i think says it all Tresiden (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added verifiable references on publications. MBadoiu 21:57, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
- That your name appears on those articles does not mean you yourself are notable. See WP:GNG - sources must provide "significant coverage" (addressing the subject - you, not your research - directly in detail) and be "independent of the subject" (you cannot use your own articles to prove you are notable). - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass the guidelines at WP:ACADEMIC. Fences and windows (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to Google Scholar there are a few hundred citations to papers where the subject is listed as the first author, but I'm not qualified to judge either whether being first author is significant or whether this is a high enough number of citations for notability in this field. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In this area, author lists are almost always alphabetical, so placement in the list is meaningless. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impressive credentials, but does not meet any notability criteria. Johndowning (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TeamDrive

Disputed prod. Software doesn't seem notable enough. Per the prod removal, it was first released in January 2009 and I haven't been able to find any secondary reviews. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It just doesn't seem to be notable enough. Sorry. If you can provide sources and the like I would be happy to reconsider. Basket of Puppies 04:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article This is a new technology which has received strong recongnition in the German language market since its introduction in January 2009. Search Google TeamDrive (in German language). It is just going to be launched internationally these days and you will see similar recognition in the English and US community within the coming 90 days. I would vote for letting this article alive for 90 days and look at the relevance and recognition again. --Dschmuck (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC) — Dschmuck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment you can include the German language articles into the article, provided they are reliable sources, in accordance with policy. However, are you saying that there aren't enough English language sources right now and if we let the article survive, there may be? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added external links to a few resources. As I said there are key US magazines and tech journalists evaluation the software and there will be English reviews and testimonials out very soon. --Dschmuck (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yet another piece of non-consumer "collaboration software". Advertising tone is strong with this one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essentially a brief one-sheet. No notability is asserted. I'm not prejudiced to this coming back as an article should it attain notability and be supported by WP:RS in the future. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 19:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In view of WP:BLP, I am uncomfortable keeping an unsourced biography with contentious content based on two "weak keep"s. Sandstein 05:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Warren (columnist)

Fails WP:Notable, Has been tagged as an unreferenced BLP since 2006. It is also WP:Original research since it seems to have been written by a regular reader of Mr. Warren's who is giving us his (or her) opinions of his work, such as: "He is argueably the most socially conservative collumnist currently active in Canada, representing an ideology that can be summarized as neo-falangist." Steve Dufour (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to notify the contributors to the article but it doesn't look like any of them (that made more than one edit) are still active on WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He sure kicks up controversy, but it's mostly blogs talking about him. His columns are provocative, and he's been around for a while, but it's not easy to find reliable sources for his notability. How about:[102][103][104][105][106][107]. LifeSiteNews.com are fans, but that's not an RS. Fences and windows (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficiently notable as far as any non-blogger sites are concerned. Maybe if he gets major syndication or the like, but not now. Collect (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Blogs aren't neccesarily non-reliable. It depends on who writes them and who has editorial control over it. Please read WP:BLOGS and explain why the mentioned blogs aren't reliable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Fences and windows. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project management softwares for Media and Entertainment

List seems to be an advertisement for specific softwaretools. External links have been removed, but the list remains a linkfarm, without any link to wikipedia articles. Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources are provided from which notability could be determined. The mere existence of these tools is not worthy of attention in Wikipedia, since we are not here for advertising or promotion. At best, we should be summarizing what other publications have said about the various entries in this category of software, if it fact this is recognized as a significant category. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Viewed as an article, I'd say get rid of it. But it's really more of a list, which may serve a useful purpose for navigation. Gigs (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still more project-management spam. Do I need to talk to Hercules and get him to divert a river again? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A simple catalog of promotional material on a marginal topic. Kuru ^talk 12:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. One (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm changing this to delete. The article is what many would have referred to as a substub earlier in my time at Wikipedia, but substubs are dead and buried. This man's article barely passes WP:ONEEVENT, and isn't really long enough to be merged into a larger related article. One (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jullu Yadav

This person's a hero, but he fails WP:BLP1E. Cunard (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Agreed that this article fits WP:ONEEVENT. But I guess anywhere upto 50% biographies are of people famous for a single event. For instance The Main Page today features Rodney King also a good 1E candidate. Jullu Yadav in my opinion has a stronger case for a bio than Rodney King who became famous for "what happened to him" rather than for "what did he do". --Deepak D'Souza 04:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Webster6^{Yo, So} 07:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have an article about the terrorist attack to merge to? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge - WP:1E applies if there are not substanial references from Reliable sources to show notability above the hundreds of other law enforcement people involved. --Triwbe (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2008 Mumbai attacks. Fair play to him, he was unarmed, and asked a guard to fire, and he remained frozen - so he took the guy's .303 rifle to fight the terrorists, and even threw a chair at them. Worth a mention in the main article. He got some good coverage,[108] including one in the UK.[109] and this interview.[110] Fences and windows (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Fence and windows' proposed merge. Cunard (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete, renaming is an editorial matter. Sandstein 05:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Parente

Article fails WP:NOT#NEWS because it discusses a single event that sparked a flurry of newsreports but which has no lasting consequences for law enforcement or lawmaking and didn't cause any significant changes in the community. Familicide is sad, but this article puts undue weight on the murders and attributes them to someone who is themselves dead without receiving a fair trial. Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is not just a single event, but an ongoing story across the nation. He is not just in the news for the familicide, but also for an investigation by the FBI. Also, there is no policy on Wikipedia requiring that one receive a fair trial prior to death, only that reliable sources be provided, and information be verifiable and accurate. And this does meet notability requirements by being covered in multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject. Being "sad" is not a criteria for inclusion or exclusion. That is not the issue here. What matters is the amount of coverage, and that it has stretched out for a period of time (more than a week) and this case continues to receive national coverage for multiple issues, not just the murders. It has highlighted in the media the topic of familicide. Also, this article is not about a news event itself; it is a biography of a deceased person, telling what he was known in the public eye for. Hellno2 (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I agree with MGM. This is way too much a "single event" (no matter how much news coverage there is) and it doesn't border on tabloidpedia: it's well into it. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is not a single event. This has been ongoing for over a week now, and more is coming out each day as new details become available. And this is not a single event either. This is about more than just the murders and familicide, also the subject's suspected shady financial dealings that are being investigated by the FBI. WP:BLP1E cannot be applied here either in favor of deletion because this is a deceased person. Hellno2 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I disagree. It is a single event. And it doesn't matter that it's been going on for over a week. And I don't understand why you feel such a need to include this in an encyclopedia, rather than put the link on your Facebook page. Sorry, but I'm going to ignore all the rules and say that I don't care. I am not convinced by the substance of your answer or your invoking of the "L" in BLP: the extended family is not dead. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In regards to the L in BLP, this article is about the subject in the title, not the extended family. There is no way, BLP1E can be applied to this at all. And WP#NOTNEWS is not an outright ban against events. Besides, this article is about not the event but the person, who is described for not one but two issues that were given media coverage. Hellno2 (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I shouldn't have used NOTNEWS as the first reason in my nomination. UNDUE weight of negative elements is the more important reason here. Just because someone is dead, doesn't mean you can drag their reputation through the mud. Also, NOTNEWS specifically discusses short burst of news coverage. It is natural for a crime to generate news coverage over the week after it happened. To make it encyclopedic it would have to be covered months or years later still. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE says:

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."

According to this policy, minority viewpoints are not to be given equal weight. There is little if any view that the subject's actions here (murder-suicide and fraud) were positive. Meanwhile, the news articles used to reference this page are stating the facts as to what the subject was suspected of doing, as this article is. They are not saying outright that the subject was a "bad" person; or is this Wikipedia page. Regardless, this policy is normally not used for deleting articles, only for changing them. This page does not lack reliable sources, and the main reason articles do get deleted is when they lack reliable sources. Hellno2 (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note--encyclopedias deal with relevant and important facts. Too many of the sentences in the current article have "are believed" or "is believed" as the main verbal phrase. But that's only one part of this not being encyclopedic. Hellno, I can understand that you're attached to this, since you wrote it. The Undue weight here is that two alleged crimes--one believed to etc. and the other "under investigation"--are applied to one person. There is more to a person than an alleged crime and an investigation; ergo, "undue weight" applies here. One might write two articles--one on the murders and one on the investigation, since that would be fair esp. as long as these are allegations, and then one would quickly find that neither is relevant enough for an encyclopedic article. So why should zero plus zero add up to one? Drmies (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These events are anything but zero. They are being covered, day after day, in newspapers and on networks all over the country. Being of a national scope alone is enough to establish notability. The sources covering them are anything but one; they are multiple, an important aspect in establishing notability. These incidents have been reported not just in tabloids but on respectable national networks like CNN, in national papers like USA Today, and in a variety of newspapers in cities around the country other than Baltimore and New York, which were involved. And being that it is two events, not one, and the perpetrator being dead, BLP1E is out. Hellno2 (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who is accused of something gets a WP article? That every suicide and familicide gets a WP article? That every single bit of news gets a WP article? And Pink cloudy sky, how is it "unusual" when the very article says it happened twice in Maryland in that week? I also looked at the guideline you pointed out, and see nothing there. The murder was not that unusual, it is not linked to a celebrity, and the only way in which Parente was "famous" was as a subject of the news event that was the investigation of his business dealings--which in themselves are not sufficient to warrant an article. Here's the relevant passage:
  Editors should consider creating articles on perpetrators if they are notable for something beyond the crime itself. Perpetrators of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article. Perpetrator notability is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question.
  Neutrality was never the issue; rubbernecking was, and the use of Wikipedia as a repository for news stories, including such entirely trivial stuff, restored by Hellno, as "Relatives, friends, and neighbors of the Parentes have expressed "shock" and "disbelief" about the killings." Oh, wow, Hellno, that is a shocker! They were shocked! Seriously, this is an encyclopedia, not a bulletin board or a Hallmark card. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the link here to "rubbernecking" is just the article itself, not a policy or even an essay. The thing with the neighbors expressing "shock" and "disbelief" is referenced, and has been reported in multiple papers (even those without a footnote on that line); therefore it is acceptable. Hellno2 (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not everything that is referenced is acceptable. Trivia are not acceptable, and you consistently refuse to address that valid point by continuously pointing to "referenced." Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia. And of course there is no "rubbernecking" policy. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia: Notability (criminal acts) guidelines. this is a non-local story, and is also unusual in many ways. Neutrality can be fixed. Pink cloudy sky (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Parente murders (?)"Interesting case. Firstly I disagree with Pink cloudy sky, the guideline s/he cited says:

Editors should consider creating articles on perpetrators if at least one of the following is true:

- They are notable for something beyond the crime itself. Perpetrators of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article. Perpetrator notability is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question.
- The victim is a renowned world figure, or immediate family member of a renowned world figure, including but not limited to politicians or worldwide celebrities. A good test for this (but not a necessary prerequisite) would be if the victim has an uncontested Wikipedia article that predates the alleged crime or death.
- The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role (for example, John Hinckley, Jr.). The assessment of notability on the basis of news coverage should follow the same criteria for assessing the notability of the crime, as above.

I do not believe the 3rd point is applicable, or the 2nd. With regards to the 1st I can't find evidence that Parente is notable beyond this event. However, the guideline also says "A criminal act is notable if it receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope." I believe the event does have national scope coverage. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the event is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, but not the perpetrator. As a result I feel the article should be renamed to something like "Parente murders" (?). Fortunately, we are helped in that the article pretty much is a coverage of the event and not the person. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming sounds like a good idea. (e.g. Murder of Tim McLean after this AFD or Murder of Dru Sjodin (had no AFD but was named as a crime). Both cases had similar levels of media coverage. Hellno2 (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying you believe it to be a good idea. May I suggest you strike your earlier keep !vote; although keep and rename are options that amount to the article staying, they are still sufficiently different, and having two different stated positions might be confusing to other readers? AdmiralKolchak (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS, and per WP:BIO. A splash of news coverage, but no indication it is causing any effects on society. Wikipedia is not a compilation of every murder or murderer. Edison (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This did indeed have an impact on society. This brought to light the topic of familicide, and the case has been mentioned on several talkshows highlighting the rise in familicides in the economic times. Hellno2 (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rise in familicides then? As far as I can tell the number of them is pretty stable. And as Edison states below, familicide was not unknown before this case. It's not like this was the first case that brought it to light. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The ability of someone to kill members of his family has been well documented for many millenia, and appears in crime stories many times per year. Nothing notable here. Edison (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: per hellno2 Pink cloudy sky (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I raised the idea first. :D Would you also mind striking out your earlier !keep vote then? AdmiralKolchak (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rename~~ Keep or rename. The article is well-sourced, and the crime was notable both for its execution (drawn out), and for the motivation (the FBI investigation into the Ponzi scheme). Refocus on the crime, not the individual. Fences and windows (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~(or maybe Rename)~~: as Fences and windows says, the crime is notable for its execution and motivation. Many articles on criminals notable only for one high-profile crime are titled with the names of the criminals themselves. Some examples are Patrick Critton, Josh Phillips (murderer), Kenneth Curtis (murderer). There is really no other practical way to title these articles (How does "The Patrick Critton Hijacking, the Josh Phillips murder case, the Kenneth Curtis murder" sound?). This man was notable for not one but two well-covered crimes. Shaliya waya (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the current name, for it seems from the news coverage he was notable also as a financial criminal. DGG (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to a name indicating the event and redirect William Parente to link to the event. Symplectic Map (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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