Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 16

< 15 April	17 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mayora

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search (use quotes) brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Cunard (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catching that, you may want to check most of my other searches (in the last part I was copy/paste the name into my google search), but is that "significant coverage" or more passing mention in an article about the team?--kelapstick (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 ^T/C 01:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He passes WP:ATHLETE because he has apparently played in at least 4 different professional leagues. FYI, In one of the leagues (the South Atlantic League) he was named as a League All-Star.[1]--Rockfang (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Come back if/when "WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines" actually becomes a guideline. AfD hero (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mr. Mayora is at the AA level this year, after playing rookie ball and class A. I disagree that being an all-star in the Class A South Atlantic League would justify any type of entitlement. It's a sign that he is more notable than other players at the class A level, but there is no rule that requires us to set aside a page for any person who received an honor in any league. Delete for now, but come back if those proposed guidelines actually become a guideline, or if Mayora makes it to the majors. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Colorado Rockies minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if you are linking that page then he passes that page. According to the link to the MiLB.com website posted he "was named to both the SAL Mid-Season and Post-Season All-Star teams". This is noting the page you just based that reasoning on states "been selected for any minor league baseball All-star game in the affiliated minor leagues." Borgarde (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for pointing that out, my mistake.--kelapstick (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've fixed a bad link, added the awards section, added several refs, and a link to an article about him. This puts me over to the keep side, but I'd really like to see one or two more solid refs.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge fails WP:ATHLETE Secret ^account 18:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor leagues are fully professional, therefore he passes WP:ATHLETE in the most obvious possible manner. It states A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards ... People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport AfD hero (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the highest level, and there is questions that minor league baseball is in fact "fully proffesional". 147.70.79.163 (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor league baseball is fully professional by any standard definition of the term. The players derive their financial income from playing in the league. Now, there is a small contingent of editors who want to delete minor league players, but rather than change WP:Athlete (this would be difficult), they are instead trying to lawyer around it, nitpicking terms like "fully". AfD hero (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope you didn't mean that comment the way it sounded. Reasonable people can disagree on the definition of fully professional, and have. Is fully professional someone who earns $1 from something? Earns the equivalent of part-time minimum wage? Full-time minimum wage? Earns enough to raise a family and buy a modest house? Is a league fully professional if every player earns whatever amount makes one fully professional, or is it fully professional if at least one player earns that much? Do we include as compensation the fact that minor leaguers often get free board with a family, or do we consider that to be like living in their parents' basement? I'm sorry you see these as nitpicking questions, but I assure you they are not. (And you might also notice that although I think these are valid questions which need answers, I also !voted keep on this and several other articles.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the minor league is the primary source of income for the majority of players, then they are fully professional. AfD hero (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And do you know for a fact that it's the primary source of income for the majority of the players? They don't have jobs in the off season? Their parents aren't supporting them? Girlfriends aren't supporting them? I've known a couple of minor leaguers (one is currently in A ball, the other eventually had a cup of coffee in the bigs), and for both of them at lower levels their income was definitely heavily supplemented by other means. But as a ~~sabrhead~~ stathead, I know that two is a laughably small sample size, so I'm wondering if you can help with documentation.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on how I interpret WP:ATHLETE, I would tend to say that this player DOES NOT meet those requirements put forth on the page. Mandermagic (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:V, there's sources, it's verifiable, it's not original research and it's neutral. Hiding T 10:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the conversation above on "fully professional"..Minor league basebal minimum salaries per [2]

Triple-A--First year: $2,150/month, after first year no less than $2,150/month

Class AA-First year: $1,500/month, after first year no less than $1,500/month

Class A (full season)--First year: $1,050/month, after first year no less than $1,050/month

Class A (short-season)--First year: $850/month, after first year no less than $850/month

So I think AAA players can probably live on those salaries, A ball players... not so much. Spanneraol (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly when you consider those salaries are just for the months they are playing.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabricamp, you're on a roll :) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derek McDaid

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search (use quotes) brings nothing, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Cunard (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catching that, you may want to check most of my other searches (in the last part I was copy/paste the name into my google search), but is that "significant coverage" or more passing mention in an article about the team?--kelapstick (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 ^T/C 01:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Come back if/when "WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines" actually becomes a guideline. AfD hero (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above comments, player does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball (unless MID Mid-season all-star is being selected for an all-star game, which I don't think it is) which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a number of refs and external links that should get this to pass WP:GNG. The All-Star appearance is a bonus on the keep side.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notability has been establish and there is good link to prove it. Cheers Kyle1278 04:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established on the article, he passes WP:ATHLETE, and the notability stated by the AfD starter is not a guideline. Borgarde (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- seems to have notability, WP:RS might be a struggle, but there is definitely material out there. HJ Mitchell (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Arguello

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search (use quotes) brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Cunard (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catching that, you may want to check most of my other searches (in the last part I was copy/paste the name into my google search), but is that "significant coverage" or more passing mention in an article about the team?--kelapstick (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 ^T/C 01:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Come back if/when "WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines" actually becomes a guideline. AfD hero (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above comments, player does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor leagues are fully professional, therefore he passes WP:ATHLETE in the most obvious possible manner. It states A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards ... People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport AfD hero (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has always been disagreement among Wikipedia editors about whether baseball's minor leagues should be regarded as fully professional. Although minor league players receive modest salaries, they are selected and employed by the major league teams and are essentially in a training / development program for the majors ([3]). Other policies, such as WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:BLP also need to be considered. WP:N requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, WP:NOT says that Wikipedia should not simply duplicate information that appears in sources such as directories or news media, and WP:BLP says care is needed in creating and maintaining biographies of living persons, especially when they are "essentially low-profile" (such as minor league baseball players). BRMo (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect somewhere. On the keep side we have the Houston Chronicle story (which I added to the article). But everything else I found is a passing mention or a stat page. Not enough to put me into the keep column.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The one Houston Chronicle article isn't quite enough to meet the standard of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." BRMo (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Abreu

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search (use quotes) brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Cunard (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catching that, you may want to check most of my other searches (in the last part I was copy/paste the name into my google search), but is that "significant coverage" or more passing mention in an article about the team?--kelapstick (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 ^T/C 01:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Come back if/when "WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines" actually becomes a guideline. AfD hero (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the proposed guideline: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable." Abreu, at AA, is still a ways from MLB. Mandsford (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've added a link to the article about him in The Roanoke Times, but I need more than this to move me into the keep column, and this was all I could find.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The one Roanoke Times article isn't quite enough to meet the standard of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." BRMo (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above comments, player does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. On the basis of consensus that he fails WP:ATHLETE - discounted comments solely poi9nting to a non-adopted guideline Fritzpoll (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Hernandez

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search (use quotes) brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Cunard (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catching that, you may want to check most of my other searches (in the last part I was copy/paste the name into my google search), but is that "significant coverage" or more passing mention in an article about the team?--kelapstick (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 ^T/C 01:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Come back if/when "WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines" actually becomes a guideline. AfD hero (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't even come back then. From the proposed guideline: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable." Getting moved to AA after an ERA of 5.04 at the A level, Hernandez might be notable for defying expectations. Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball (unless MID Mid-season all-star is being selected for an all-star game, which I don't think it is) which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. On the keep side we have the Springfield News-Leader article and the all-star appearance. For me, this pushes it slightly over to keep, but I'd love to see more.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see the one Springfield News-Leader article cited by Fabrictramp and a paragraph on his being named to the Midwest League All-Star Team. That's getting close, but doesn't quite meet my interpretation of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." The other cited sources are statistics sites, which—based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY—don't really count for demonstrating notability. BRMo (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE Secret ^account 18:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor leagues are fully professional, therefore he passes WP:ATHLETE in the most obvious possible manner. It states A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards ... People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport AfD hero (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has always been disagreement among Wikipedia editors about whether baseball's minor leagues should be regarded as fully professional. Although minor league players receive modest salaries, they are selected and employed by the major league teams and are essentially in a training / development program for the majors ([4]). Other policies, such as WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:BLP also need to be considered. WP:N requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, WP:NOT says that Wikipedia should not simply duplicate information that appears in sources such as directories or news media, and WP:BLP says care is needed in creating and maintaining biographies of living persons, especially when they are "essentially low-profile" (such as minor league baseball players). BRMo (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above comments, player does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and cleanup. The subject is notable; AfD is not the place to resolve article issues. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laws of information systems

Although there is substantial content, the article does not mention what the subject is. Instead, it goes on to list what may be categorized as part of the subject. The article is a list of loosely connected laws that has not been substantiated by any constitution or scientific experiment. It is set out to fabricate a conclusion, rather than define or describe the subject Emana (Talk) 23:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm not sure there's a reason for deletion (rather than improvement). This would be pretty clear evidence of notability of the topic. It includes things like:

Theorem 1 : The energy flows and storage within an
information system consist of those with information
content and those without information content.
Prooosition 9: Only information devices can make
information meaninghl to the information system of
which they are parts.

So keep for now. 17:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not questioning the notability (although the article itself does not assert any). The article at IEEE-Xplore you have referenced says that the content of the paper is a proposal and does not show that it is a widely accepted theory in its field of study. Only that it was presented. The article for Laws of information systems goes on to list theories instead of actually starting out with an explanation such as, "The laws of information systems are the basic rules of .... governing the... in the studies of computer....." Currently, the article reads like a rough draft to somebody's research paper. Because of its substantial content, I do think it should be sandboxed to the original contributor's userspace instead of a straight delete.--Emana (Talk) 17:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ignored appeals to a non-adopted guideline, but the appeals to WP:ATHLETE are strong in this discussion Fritzpoll (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Holland (baseball)

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search (add quotes around "Greg Holland", keeping them messes up code in external link) brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor leaguer who is not notable.--Giants27 ^T/C 23:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Specifically, see this article and this article. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Come back if/when "WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines" actually becomes a guideline. AfD hero (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the proposed guideline: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable." Somebody got the idea that everyone called up to AA ball should have their own page, but the Northwest Arkansas Naturals are still a long way from the Kansas City Royals. Mandsford (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguello has been at class A for several years, is now at AA, still a ways from MLB. Mandsford (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not passing an essay is hardly a reason for deletion either. And that essay doesn't acknowledge WP:N as WP:BIO/WP:ATHLETE does. Hobit (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect somewhere. I've corrected the bad Baseball Cube link in the article, but I've struck out at finding sources that show notability. We may well be hearing a lot more about this player in the future, but I think it's premature for an article right now. (Opinion subject to change if someone scares up sources.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not passing a failed guideline isn't a reason for deletion, and in any case, it just says "not assumed" notable. From WP:BIO and WP:N the question is if there are solid sources on topic. We've got [5], [6]]. [7] and [8] provide some more details. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Three of the four stories cited by Hobit deal with his college baseball career; I think the consensus interpretation of WP:ATHLETE is that performance at the college/amateur level only demonstrates notability when it's at the level of the Olympics or a world championship, even though college sports may be covered by reliable sources. The other source cited by Hobit is an article on Holland's 2007 Rookie League team that includes a three-sentence bullet on him. That's useful, but again not enough to establish notability. Looking for other sources, I found a few more sources on his college play, but nothing significant on his minor league play. If he continues to pitch well, the coverage will start appearing and his article can be recreated, but based on what's available now my opinion is "delete." BRMo (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's consensous someone really needs to change WP:BIO (of which WP:ATLHETE is a part). It reads: "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.". As those sources would seem to pretty clearly meet WP:N, I think the guidelines as written are strongly on the side of inclusion in this case. Hobit (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:N's guideline of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" taken in isolation might suggest inclusion of articles on college athletes, it also notes that whether the criterion is met is determined "by consensus" and that it is only "one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia." I also try to take into consideration the other relevant policies and guidelines, including WP:NOT, WP:BLP, WP:BIO, etc., as well as the consensus established by past AfD discussions. Wikipedia's decisions are ultimately determined by consensus, not by any single guideline taken in isolation. If you'd like to propose changing WP:ATHLETE to designate college athletes as notable, go ahead and try; I'll be surprised if the consensus supports the change. BRMo (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE specifically defers to WP:N as it is part of WP:BIO. There is no change needed. It is not the case that the guidelines are in conflict. I realize not everyone treats it that way, but that's the way it's worded. Certainly consensus in a specific case can override the general rules. But I don't see an special case here that justifies treating this differently than the guidelines specify (and certainly no one has brought up such a case). Hobit (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP (which is policy, and thus takes precedence over WP:N) is pretty clear that "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." It's preferable to cover college athletes and marginally notable minor league players in articles about their teams rather than in stand-alone articles. BRMo (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but two of those articles are solely about the subject. Specifically for winning an award (twice!). In general when someone gets coverage on a national (though specialized) news site twice and that coverage is about them, there is no BLP issue. If you would like to bring it to the BLP noticeboard, that's reasonable. But I'm certain that there isn't a BLP issue here. Hobit (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP noticeboard is for resolving BLP disputes and for dealing with editors who persistently make edits that violate BLP policy. I am just pointing out that WP:BLP, like similar language in WP:NOT, also provides guidance for AfD discussions. Once a college baseball player (or a minor leaguer who doesn't make it to the majors) stops playing, he "essentially remains a low-profile individual"; thus, WP:BLP and WP:NOT are relevant. BRMo (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once a notable college prof retires or a "B-list" actor retires they also are "essentially a low-profile individual". Should we not have those articles too? Our standard of coverage is WP:ATHLETE which specifically defers to WP:N as a part of WP:BIO. If you don't think that's the right thing to do, get consensus to change the guidelines. But "Rules as Written" are very plain here. Hobit (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A difference is the college professors and actors create original works that continue to live on after the creator stops working. However, WP:BLP really should considered for all biographies of living persons, especially for low-profile individuals whose biographies will not be watched by as many editors. The BLP policy suggests that for a low-profile person, such as a college athlete, it's generally better cover them in another appropriate article, such as an article about the college's team, rather than creating a separate biography. Also, I don't think the rules need to be changed—certainly there are occasionally cases where an athlete doesn't meet the specific criteria of WP:ATHLETE, but because of a lot of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources still merits an article based on WP:N. But IMO, that would require a lot more than two articles from a college sports Web site and winning a "conference player of the week" award. The more important point is that AfD discussions need to consider all of the relevant policies and guidelines, and not just focus on the sentence that supports your position. BRMo (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Minor leagues are fully professional, therefore he passes WP:ATHLETE in the most obvious possible manner. It states A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards ... People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport. AfD hero (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has always been disagreement among Wikipedia editors about whether baseball's minor leagues should be regarded as fully professional. Although minor league players receive modest salaries, they are selected and employed by the major league teams and are essentially in a training / development program for the majors ([9]). Other policies, such as WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:BLP also need to be considered. WP:N requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, WP:NOT says that Wikipedia should not simply duplicate information that appears in sources such as directories or news media, and WP:BLP says care is needed in creating and maintaining biographies of living persons, especially when they are "essentially low-profile" (such as minor league baseball players). BRMo (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor leaguer who does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jhon Florentino

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search (add quotes, keeping them messes up code in external link) brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor leaguer who is not notable.--Giants27 ^T/C 23:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Cunard (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the references need to be checked to make sure they are substantial coverage, not just a passing mention.--kelapstick (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Come back if/when "WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines" actually becomes a guideline. AfD hero (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and come back if Florentino makes it to the bigs. From the proposed guideline: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable." Not sure where the idea came about that AA players are entitled to their own page. Mandsford (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect somewhere. I've corrected an external link going to the wrong player, but I'm not turning up much more than passing mentions or stat pages for him.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor leaguer who does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Bowden

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search (add quotes, keeping them messes up code in external link) brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 ^T/C 23:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the references need to be checked to make sure they are substantial coverage, not just a passing mention.--kelapstick (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Come back if/when "WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines" actually becomes a guideline. AfD hero (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the proposed guideline: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable." No notability established. He'll have to get a single to make it to first base on Wikipedia, since we're nowhere near ball four. Mandsford (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has not actually played a game at AA yet.[10] Although he's on the roster, he' been on the DL.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect somewhere. Has not played at AA yet, and I'm striking out at finding independent sources that are more than just passing mentions or stat pages.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Minor leagues are fully professional, therefore he passes WP:ATHLETE in the most obvious possible manner. It states A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards ... People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport AfD hero (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has always been disagreement among Wikipedia editors about whether baseball's minor leagues should be regarded as fully professional. Although minor league players receive modest salaries, they are selected and employed by the major league teams and are essentially in a training / development program for the majors ([11]). Other policies, such as WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:BLP also need to be considered. WP:N requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, WP:NOT says that Wikipedia should not simply duplicate information that appears in sources such as directories or news media, and WP:BLP says care is needed in creating and maintaining biographies of living persons, especially when they are "essentially low-profile" (such as minor league baseball players). BRMo (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on my view of things, I do not consider the minor leagues as being "fully professional" therefore, I say he is a minor leaguer who does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Maiques

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search (add quotes, keeping them messes up code in external link) brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 ^T/C 23:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Come back if/when "WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines" actually becomes a guideline. AfD hero (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball (unless MID Mid-season all-star is being selected for an all-star game, which I don't think it is) which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence, leaning towards redirecting somewhere. On the keep side, we've got him as a class-A all star, and a highly ranked prospect for the Cards. On the delete side, I'm not turning up much else. I've added some sources to the article, FWIW.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for anyone searching for sources, you'll get more hits for "Kenny Maiques" than you do for "Kenneth Maiques".--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing enough significant coverage from reliable sources to qualify as notable. If he does well in Class AA this year, we may start seeing more coverage. BRMo (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE Secret ^account 18:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor leagues are fully professional, therefore he passes WP:ATHLETE in the most obvious possible manner. It states A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards ... People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport AfD hero (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has always been disagreement among Wikipedia editors about whether baseball's minor leagues should be regarded as fully professional. Although minor league players receive modest salaries, they are selected and employed by the major league teams and are essentially in a training / development program for the majors ([12]). Other policies, such as WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:BLP also need to be considered. WP:N requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, WP:NOT says that Wikipedia should not simply duplicate information that appears in sources such as directories or news media, and WP:BLP says care is needed in creating and maintaining biographies of living persons, especially when they are "essentially low-profile" (such as minor league baseball players). BRMo (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor leaguer who does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both through running its course and via SNOW. it seems that over the past week of AfD there has been an effort to improve it's references and upon my view I understand it needs work. However, consensus clearly shows a unanimous desire for keep, though many of these !votes admit that it needs work to avoid coming back here again. Valley2city^‽ 01:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Educational inequality

This article has not improved since the original AfD. I've held off in case it did. At present it is an essay with references and a soapbox. It pushes a view. That has not changed since it was written first. WP is not the place for essays and soapbox arguments. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs cleanup and more refs. I have reservations with the section "Some children are more equal than others", but delete whole article? No. There are useful and verified facts and many online references offer room for improvement.--Vejvančický (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. AfD is to discuss for deletion. And this article is mostly soapbox trash. So it should either be sorted out or be deleted. The name of the article may be notable, but the content is an OR essay. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep - encyclopedic content, can be rescued by cutting out the edubabble cruft. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Checked the histories and found the first AfD HERE. You're correct, it has only seen modest improvement. It will need the careful attentions of an expert in the field. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs cleanup and improvement but the topic is notable and encyclopedic. --J^mundo 18:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From a quick glance at the sources the article doesnt seem a strong case of OR. Its certainly an important subject - while the article isnt written in the best encyclopedic tone, it seems to introduce the topic well enough. Im reluctant to make too many copy edits in case I misrepresent the subject, perhaps you could tag it with {{Expert}} per Schmidt's comment? FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ actually. I normally don't believe that deletion is the way to go with a badly written article, but this one seems to be just pointed in the wrong direction for the term. "Educational inequality occurs where the education system is contributing to or maintaining inequality." I can't find a single source that supports that definition of the term but the entire article seems based on that definition. The common use of the term doesn't require that the educational system be contributing. There is still an educational inequality if there is a gap and the system is working to fix it. I agree that the term is notable and parts of the article are recoverable. A complete rewrite would be fine too. Hobit (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The definition you picked out was written by me on Monday, the older version was perhaps more accurate if less clear, sorry if thats the case. From a quick look at the literature I cant find a good concise definition to source from, but I think I've now been able to make the lede more NPOV. I found a source to add that mentions the education system acting to reproduce inequality. Hope this is okay for now, I still think waiting for expert attention is better than deleting this important and very notable topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too worried about the wording. It's just that the term is being defined in a way that doesn't jive with the sources. Not even the first source, which mainly deals with the issue as a problem with the educational system, defines the term this way. It's like having an article on "engineering failures" and defining it as "An engineering failure is caused by a poorly designed computer system". It's only a part of what an engineering failure is, and states that's the only source of the problem. One way or another the article, as it stands, needs to go IMO. It's just that bad. A complete rewrite would perhaps be preferable, but either way it needs to go IMO. Hobit (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several aspects of educational inquality - see this source, for example. If the article currently concentrates upon one them, this is no reason to delete; it is a reason to expand and restructure. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general I agree. But in this case it's a situation where someone has defined "color" as "pink" and written an article about it. I'm not sure what can be saved. You're probably right, but I don't like something that is this (IMO) highly misleading in an article. Ignore that. The source you provided is so outstanding I think we'd be remiss in not having an article on the topic even for a short while. I'm really tempted to stubify it and start over later (when the semester is out). I _really_ dislike the current article. So Keep but rewrite Hobit (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad altaf gohar

Recreation of a deleted page (Muhammad Altaf Gohar). Seems like a dodge of page protection to me. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that the subject meets notability guidelines. This is a partial copy of Muhammad Altaf Gohar, but since there hasn't been a deletion discussion, we might as well have one now. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable. No sources, and Google gets no hits except the Wikipedia article. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry J. Farber

Non-notable, fails g test, autobiographical Dancecarry09876 (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that this AFD nomination was made by a sockpuppet of User:Bothpath , in an apparent attempt to hide the evidence of their recent vandalism[13], [14] in the article's category. User then tried to clear out their talk page with this SP edit. MuffledThud (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - numerous Ghits from WP:RS, see http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&q=barry+farber+motivational&cf=all: please see comment above on vandalism and sockpuppetry. Tagging article for rescue. MuffledThud (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:AFTER. Notable author, often quoted by others. Plenty of sources available for cleanup of BLP. Bad form if nominated by an abusive sockpuppet account. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is a notable author and the article has appropriate references. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 12:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city^‽ 01:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual high five

Neologism/Stuff made up one day? Again, I am neutral, and listing for discussion. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism, No source, Not enough significance for a article on WP. Perhaps for the Urban Dictionary. -- Emana (Talk) 23:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amazingly, there is already an article for High five that includes a section on the "air five". Since, by this article's own admission, "Virtual high five" is synonymous with "Air five", it seems that any relevant new information (including a cite on the term, if it can be found) should be copied into High five, at which point this article is superfluous. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A quick subsequent search of the web and the news through Google did not reveal any use of the term "virtual high five" in the same context as "air five". A "virtual high five" seems only to refer to the "giving" of a high five over the internet. Given this, and barring any subsequent sources found, I think Virtual high five should simply be deleted as both non-notable and inaccurate. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of any good reason this shouldn't be a redirect to High five — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Beyond pointless. No reason to redirect because we don't need a bunch of redirects with words added to the term redirected to. E-high five, computer high five, Internet high five, digital high five, net high five -- ridiculous. Anyone looking for it will look for plain old high five. DreamGuy (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Clean-up. Cites no sources, not clearly noteworthy. Cnilep (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sawford

Fails notability Bothpath (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't find anything on Ghits/GNews. Sole claim to notability seems to be as the chief executive of a thinktank. At the most a mention warranted on the Local Government Information Unit page, and I'm not even certain that would qualify as notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any RSes on him. Hobit (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. all Valley2city^‽ 01:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Mosby

Articles about fictional characters with little discernible notability and no usable sources. I myself am a fan of the show, but I don't let that get in the way of seeing that as they stand, the articles are not notable. The articles are certainly well-made, but without notability, that doesn't matter. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 13:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this fictional character is notable. Several independent sources in my google search. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share those? I did a google news search among others and couldn't find anything sufficient. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added three more character pages that I meant to add initially, but I forgot to click "save page". Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Being the main character in a major TV series sounds notable to me.SPNic (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. All are notable, they are the main characters on a CBS show with 4 seasons and still running.Theeagleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

That comment outlines your lack of knowledge of Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. An article must have clear, reliable third-party sources that prove the subject's notability, which none of these articles have. Also, simply being related to something that is notable does not make something notable. It must be notable on its own. In other words, notability is not inherited. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator is going to insult anybody who disagrees with him, it's safe to assume bad faith.SPNic (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How was that an insult? His vote does not address any of the issues with the article. The only argument given so far is that "since the show is successful, the characters must be notable," even though that is a direct violation of WP:NOTINHERITED. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refering to a voter's "lack of knowledge" was, to put it mildly, less than tactful. The general consensus is that the main character on a notable TV show is notable.SPNic (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point me to where that has been established? Because that seems to go against not only WP:GNG, but WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:IINFO, WP:CRUFT and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, among others. For you to just say that "characters are generally notable" does not make it true. and in regards to my comment toward Theeagleman, I meant no offense. However, simply saying that someone lacks knowledge in regards to a certain subject is not an insult, nor is it in any way assuming bad faith. It may be less than civil (and for that I apologize), but it is actually you who assumed bad faith when you accused me of having poor intentions. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keep comments in original discussion accurately reflect consensus interpretation of GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? GNG is clear that a subject has to have substantial coverage in order to be considered notable, and I can't find anything to suggest that such sources exist for these characters. There is a reason that I did not nominate Barney Stinson. There are many reliable sources for that character. Most of the "Keep" votes seem to be based on WP:ILIKEIT rather than actual policy or guidelines. Plus, the actual content of the articles themselves are purely in-universe character biographies that are better suited for a fansite. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Central characters in a very important fiction should have articles, but I am not sure whether or not this fiction is sufficiently important. If judged not important enough to justify the character articles, then merge. . The only question for There is no consensus at all that the GNG is relevant to such articles--if there were any such consensus, we would be having these hundreds of debates here and failure to agree of guidelines at every possibly related place. IUn any case, even if one is in the group that thinks the GNG applies, the conclusion would be to merge. Subnotable subjects make suitable candidates for sections in a combination article. There is no policy or guideline that the subjects of such sections have to be notable--indeed, if they were, they;d have sepoarate articles. There just needs to be sources, and the work itself is a source for this. Is there any reason the nominator thinks the merge inappropriate? DGG (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would fully support a merge. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although don't expect me to explain my reasons. since xfd's are little more than votes, per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_23#Habari and contra WP:NOTVOTE, there's really no point, anyway - they'd be ignored in favor of popular opinion, anyway. Rwiggum - i advise you to do the same. the closing admin will ignore your attempts to further clarify your position so its pointless to try. Misterdiscreet (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a list When, according to notability guidelines, a character is insufficiently notable to be covered in his/her own article, covering the group in context of the show is a viable solution. Not being independently notable is not the same as not suitable for inclusion altogether. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all -- we have articles on major characters of other major shows. This is not like some bit part, these are all multi-season every episode starring roles. I normally support deletion of most things up for AFD, but this is a ridiculous nomination. DreamGuy (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2009
Keep Every other major show has character pages, what makes this one different. I'm okay with the episode pages getting deleted, but this is absurd.Tej68 ([[User talk:
If we are looking for sources, interviews with the actors can be used, here's one for Robin[15], another for Robin [16], one for ted [17], another for ted[18]. One for marshall [19]I'm sure their are more, all of these touch on the characters and info can be pulled out to put into the articles. Tej68 (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above. –- kungming·2 05:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Tej68. The consensus that episode articles should generally be deleted has nothing to do with the idea of central characters' articles being deleted. This is a notable show, and its main characters are thus notable enough to have their own article. If you think that central characters' articles should, in general, be deleted, then take that cause up elsewhere, but until it's the Wikipedia norm, this articles should stay. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fleet Leasing. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Benefits of Fleet Leasing

Original research per WP:NOR, personal reflection per WP:NOTAFORUM, barely referenced with unreliable sources per WP:RS, borderline WP:SPAM. MuffledThud (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not a how-to site. --Emana (Talk) 23:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redir both this Article (and the Fleet Leasing redir) to Fleet vehicle. That would be the proper place to discuss advantages and disadvantages (balanceing the views). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Exit; merge material as appropriate. Majoreditor (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - this page is helpful and informative for fleet leasing. Snshne9 (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)— Snshne9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Informative as it may be, the article is not written in a fashion that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. It does not conform to WP:NPOV as the title suggest "benefits" only. Also, the article needs to be tagged for giving non-guaranteed financial advice on WP. --Emana (Talk) 22:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Financial Benefits of Fleet Leasing as an inappropriate article subject (inherently biased). I don't see an material that can easily be salvaged to Fleet Leasing (a potentially notable topic, although it should really be Fleet leasing) so redirect Fleet Leasing to Fleet vehicles for now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city^‽ 07:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ori

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search (add quotes, keeping them messes up code in external link) brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor leaguer per WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 ^T/C 22:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Cunard (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the references need to be checked to make sure they are substantial coverage, not just a passing mention.--kelapstick (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above comments, player does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball (unless MEX Mid-season all-star is being selected for an all-star game, which I don't think it is) which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. In the first half dozen pages of google and google news hits I only came up with stat pages and passing mentions.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vandalism. merge from history if there's anything useful Fritzpoll (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bathroom vandalism

This was listed for prod but the template was removed by the creator; listing here to prevent that from happening again. The prod reason was "No meaningful or notable content worthy of an encylopedia article". JaGa^talk 21:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, an article can only be PRODed once. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is why it was AfD'ed the second time. Turgan ^Talk 23:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect. to vandalism! Yourname (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... don't need a separate article for all the rooms/places that can be vandalized, or the materials used in vandalizing, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vandalism. That said, a topic with over 20,000 news hits ought to be notable enough to have its own article, if anyone takes the time to write it! [20] Fences and windows (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vandalism and redirect. Turgan ^Talk 06:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My arguement is stated above as the original nominator for PROD. This is better covered within the existing Vandalism article. Turgan ^Talk 08:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge with Vandalism. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kniginyzky

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search (add quotes, keeping them messes up code in external link) brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor leaguer per WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 ^T/C 22:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Cunard (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the references need to be checked to make sure they are substantial coverage, not just a passing mention.--kelapstick (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball (unless MID Mid-season all-star is being selected for an all-star game, which I don't think it is) which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect somewhere. I've added a couple of refs, but I'm not seeing much more than passing mentions in google or google news. The best we have right now for notability is an all-star selection in a single-A league, which doesn't quite do it for me.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor leaguer who does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joke Theory

Hoax/neologism/nonsense/non-notable/original research? I'm neutral for now, I'm listing to generate discussion. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jokes are certainly studied within academia (by psychologists and sociologists mainly), and it even appears that the term "joke theory" is in usage [21]. Nonetheless, this article is more along the lines of something made up one day, and the term jokestitution is clearly not in anything resembling common usage. Given that joke theory does exist, though, a redirect to joke seems in order for now, and at some point this article might be written. Cool3 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page is a vehicle for author's pathetic attempt at humor. Let me guess, you bet your friend $20 that you could get ten people to read a joke that you had written. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably should have been speedied for how pathetic it is. If speedy deletes don't cover nonsense like this they should. DreamGuy (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to take this moment to step in and defend this article. Your reaction towards the article "joke theory" is exactly as I had hypothesized. You see, I am a very renowned Psychologist, Dr. Jenkins, and my colleagues at the City University of New York and I have began to hypothesize on the effects of Jokes on the minds of people. Your response models the concept of "joke suppresions: When one group or groups of people fail to see humor in a Joke, then they will do all in their power to Suppress and/or eliminate the Joke. My Colleagues and I are planning on publishing a Thesis concerning the effects of Jokes on human minds, and we will soon release it, entitled Joke Theory: Human's Perspective with Regard to Humor. So, with regard to my research, I would very much appreciate it if you were to keep this article, as it will allow for our studies to go beyond just those in the Lab. Thank you kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IoIwut101 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Jenkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.78.19 (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a research platform. Study it if you want, but do not impede its natural course. First it would make very poor research, and second "future work" is not notable. Also beware of conflicts of interests. Wikipedia is not a place to do science by press conference. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, where's an administrator when you need one? Mandsford (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Good work all round Fritzpoll (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix14news

Article about a non-notable student news organization. Google search only turned up primary sources and Facebook page. No coverage in reliable secondary sources, failing WP:N KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There is a lot of notability that the article claims, but the only sources are those connected with the subject itself. TheLetterM (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per extensive revisions to the page. TheLetterM (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable tv show at a single college. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and doubt that it will ever be. Ceranllama chat post 21:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Excellent work by Michael. Ceranllama chat post 19:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable student produced public access show from a small college. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Tiptoety ^talk 21:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a redirect and mention in Elon University be appropriate? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page title is not a likely search term. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if someone was looking for information on this news organization, the page title would be a highly likely search term. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – The above user has been blocked for sockpuppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Trim and Merge~~ to Elon University. Plenty of NN content here, but the organization clearly exists and merits a bit of coverage there. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. I should have had more faith... :-) Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep now that I have trimmed the extraneous fluff and sourced the awards. Needs additional sources, but its looking much better. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All in the proper research. I have just upped my keep from "weak" to "strong" based upon aditional awards just found and added to the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Schmidt and recent changes to article. Strong notability demonstrated. Toddst1 (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note An anonymous SPA IP, quite possibly the IP of the blocked author, just tried re-adding all the unsourced kruft I had removed diff. I reverted to my last version and politely left a note on the IP's talk page diff, as well as the talk page of the blocked author diff, explaining that the additional information could not remain as being both unencyclopedic and unsourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to withdraw this nomination and applaud the efforts of those who improved the article. I do understand, however, that since there are still a couple of outstanding delete !votes this can't be speedy kept. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hawes

Nothing to assert notability per WP:CREATIVE. JaGa^talk 20:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are a lot of Andrew Hawes about; I have tried adding "artist" or "Australia" to the search term, but I can't find anything to indicate notability, certainly not to the standard of WP:CREATIVE. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence that the subject meets WP:CREATIVE. The article reads suspiciously like a cut'n'paste and may breach WP:COPYVIO. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, notability not established. WWGB (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you are trying to delete this? My father inlaw is an artist and I am trying to get his biography on wikipedia. I asked my Andrew to write a biography so I could put it on wikepedia - this is not a spamming excercise! Please tell me what IU need to do in order for this to be accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggavalas (talk • contribs) 12:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC) — Ggavalas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and in order to have an article a person needs to be notable enough, as explained in Notability (people) and (for an artist} WP:CREATIVE. Also, if you are related to the subject, you have a Conflict of Interest and should not be writing about him. JohnCD (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete no third party coverage of such an Andrew Hawes existing as a painter. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Andrew+Hawes%22+painter&num=10&hl=en LibStar (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stoddard House

Non notable building, WP:notability states - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. It seems that this building hasn't. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 20:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with this editor's other articles, it exists solely to promote his tour. With no sources other than his tour, it's not encyclopedic. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the tone of that remark. It would be absurd to suggest that the author is trying to promote the tour in order to gain financial fortune, if that is what you are implying. Otherwise, you don't know and can't know what is the author's entire motivation. You should just focus on saying why you believe the article is not wikipedia notable, and leave out the speculation. doncram (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I object to the editor in question's contributions—he's got a COI, he doesn't use summaries, he reverts edits and prods without discussion, he has zero edits to article talk pages, he creates articles that duplicate material elsewhere in WP, and so on... I have trouble AGF with him, because he doesn't appear to want to create a better encyclopedia—only a better Oyster Bay encyclopedia. And that's not what WP is about, imo. If he starts to work with others to create a single good-sized "History of OB" article, I'd be much less cynical. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced the problem is so serious it cannot be solved through editing the tone of the article. Have you tried to find sources? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am far from sure as to the merits of the building as such. However, it appears to have had significant contents, namely a collection of genalogical material (now removed). The article might be restructured into one on Townsend Society of America, currently a redlink. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither the house nor the society are notable. We might next look at Oyster Bay History Walk, and those building named therein that are not actual historical monuments. DGG (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much support having one central discussion about multiple articles, rather than separate AfD's. doncram (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest central discussion should be held at Talk:Oyster Bay History Walk, which could result in expansion of that article and in converting some currently short articles into redirects to it, per a suggestion by User:Tim Ross. doncram (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Currently the article is short on material, sources about the house itself. The photo is great, and should be used as a side thumbnail illustration and/or included in a subsection on this house in the walking tour article and/or the "History of Oyster Bay" article that has been suggested in another one of these multiple discussions. doncram (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city^‽ 07:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Betty (video game)

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines, as notability is not inherited from the main topic. Also, article reads like an advertisement. BlueSquadronRaven 20:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. BlueSquadronRaven 20:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup. Game for a major console from a major publisher with multiple major sources. TJ Spyke 21:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources such as? I can't see that every title by a major publisher for a major console is notable in and of itself. I'm just trying to understand the rationale. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Looking at the links in the article to IGN and GameSpot, there is plenty of independent coverage there and from reliable secondary sources. Notability is easily established. The reason why the article read like an advertisement is that because the second paragraph was a copyvio of the IGN synopsis at [22] I have removed that paragraph as shown here. MuZemike 21:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Atomic Betty is the way to go 83.251.131.118 (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did you look for sources? Two of the external links there lead to misc. articles that can be used to establish notability and they've been they've been there since 2007. Game Rankings lists some usable reviews and GameZone has a decent sized review, there's previews on IGN, GameSpot and 1up. Someone another 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MuZemike removed a copyvio and I threw together a basic reception section and cited some sources. So now, with that raccoon's help, I'll give myself a prrrrrrrrromotion. Someone another 16:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A game released for a major platform with reliable sources. I strongly suggest NOT to merge as the game has enough information to necessitate a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagetto (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Reformed Episcopal Church, since most of the people who !voted keep or delete left merge as an acceptable alternative. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cranmer Theological House

Non-notable educational institution. Article was previously merged into Reformed Episcopal Church after a merge process in January 2009, but a user has re-created it. Chonak (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same as with the two other discussions: not notable, no valid third-party references. Merge if possible, otherwise delete. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 20:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete. Merge contents into Reformed Episcopal Church, leave Cranmer Theological House as a redirect. Tb (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Chonak (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Chonak (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Chonak (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this Google news search, and a hit in ProQuest for another sizeable piece in The Advocate (Baton Rouge). I count at least two significant coverage in independent RS, which meets the GNG, and a handful more RS trivial mentions. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I would have thought that a college offering degree level courses was notable in its own right, not merely as part of its denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for those who vote keep: Can you indicate whether you would object to a merge to Reformed Episcopal Church in the absence of a fuller article? Tb (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be relevant to note that the institution is rather small, is not state-accredited, was running only two classes in the Spring 2009 term, and anticipates awarding three degrees at the end of the spring term. Chonak (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For the record, U.S. states (except for New York) don't "accredit" institutions of higher education, although most states have some sort of legal authorization process for postsecondary education institutions. A further wrinkle is that some states (Texas is one and I think Louisiana is another) exempt religious institutions from their authorization process. Technicalities aside, it is clear from http://www.cranmerhouse.org/accreditation.htm that Cranmer House is not accredited (not even by one of the government-recognized Christian accreditors, which include Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada and Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools). --Orlady (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep is OK but Merge and redirect to Reformed Episcopal Church is better- Unlike the situation with the "Cummins" theological school, there are some third-party ghits that substantiate the existence of this Reformed Episcopal institution. Specifically, I found several ministers' biographies that list degrees from this school and a couple of other bios of people who identify themselves as faculty. This leads me to think it likely that other third-party coverage exists to establish notability. However, given the current lack of such coverage and the sparseness of the article, merge and redirect seems like the better choice for this article. --Orlady (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"it is likely" that other coverage exists is not the same as any kind of actual verifiable coverage. Tb (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reformed Episcopal Church, and leave a note on the redirect page pointing people to this AfD and telling them not to recreate the article yet. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was partial merge and redirect to Reformed Episcopal Church. Most of the people who !voted keep or delete left merge as an acceptable alternative, but the last two argued for only a redirect due to a lack of reliable sources. Any salvageable, verifiable content should be merged, and then the article should be redirected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cummins Memorial Theological Seminary

Non-notable educational institution. Article was previously merged into Reformed Episcopal Church after a merge process in January 2009, but a user has re-created it. Chonak (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as with the two other discussions: not notable, no valid third-party references. Merge if possible, otherwise delete. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 20:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Did a google, google news, google books, and google scholar search on the subject, and found maybe one independent RS. Doesn't yet seem to meet notability guidelines. Mergeing back into parent article would also be acceptable. John Carter (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete: Merge contents with Reformed Episcopal Church and leave Cummins Memorial Theological Seminary as a redirect. Tb (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Reliable sources cover the place as "Cummins Theological Seminary" in Google News. The fact that it's not regionally accredited is troubling, and I was unable to substantiate it's SC-specific accreditation status via their website, but it certainly meets WP:V. Merging it wouldn't be a terrible outcome. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While WP:SCHOOLS did fail, the fact remains that tertiary degree-granting institutions are still generally considered notable. I'm finding plenty of independent coverage. It's not necessarily of the highest and most in-depth quality, but it's there [23] [24] (registration required for those, but you should have access through your library). There seems to be coverage on a lot of websites about universities as well (just page through google and you'll see plenty). I may be accused of WP:OTHERSTUFF for this, but this institution is at least as notable as your average high school, and those are consistently kept at AfD. Cool3 (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be relevant to note that the school appears to not be in operation at present: its Master's degree program is "being restructured", and students are referred to other institutions. Chonak (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I would have thought that a college offering degree level courses was notable in its own right, not merely as part of its denomination. I would say Keep, but for the last comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for those who vote keep: Can you indicate whether you would object to a merge to Reformed Episcopal Church in the absence of a fuller article? Tb (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand and further source, even though a nice stub is aceptable... for several reasons:
1. It strikes me as odd that Wiki has a precedent to usually accept articles about high schools, yet here we are debating notability of a Seminary. Higher education would tend to indicate greater notability.
2. Doing a news search I found 3 articles from 1955, that herald a black Methodist minister from the seminary being installed as pastor in an all-white church. That alone raised my eyebrows, as common-place as it would be today, it was nearly unheard of in 1955.
3. The seminary seems well-covered in Google Books.
4. And even with only 219 G-Hits and the few at Google News, the quality of the sources available for expansion and sourcing seem reasonably sound.
Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep normally, it would be a keep, but there are some problems: the Seminary at present has no actual existence, but is only operating as an unaccredited correspondence school, Cummins Memorial Theological Seminary External Studies Division, and does not presently offer degrees. Some more actual sourced information about the history would help. DGG (talk)
Interesting bit of history. In History of the Presbyterian Church in South Carolina it tells that the idea for a Theological Seminary in South Carolina was first conceived in 1817. Cummings and 2 others formed a committee to draft the plan for a seminary and reported their findings in 1819. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unaccredited theological schools like this are ten a penny. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that Cummins Memorial Theological Seminary is approved by the Commission of Higher Education in the State of South Carolina, and the Commission of Theological Education of the Reformed Episcopal Church. Likely not enough though. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The state accreditation is not confirmed by available info. See the article's talk page for a link to the state's current list of institutions. Chonak (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources that might establish notability or otherwise assist in verification of this articles claims. Absent reliable sources that allow for verification, articles should be deleted.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reformed Episcopal Church. The closest things to independent coverage that I have seen are primarily about the denomination, not about the school. Thus, it seems to have significance in connection with the denomination, and anyone looking for it would be able to find it via a redirect. As for the accreditation issue, educational accreditation by itself does not make an educational institution notable and lack of accreditation does not in itself make an institution non-notable, but there is no evidence that Cummins has educational accreditation. Not only is the state approval cited on their website not confirmed by the state (as Chomak pointed out), but it's not equivalent to accreditation. In the U.S., state approval of post-secondary educational institutions is essentially a license to operate an education business. New York is the only U.S. state that accredits higher education institutions. The other two approvals listed on the Cummins website appear at most to be theological approval, which is not educational accreditation. --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are free. Otherwsie, stick me in the delete camp, or the delete and then after that deletion has happened, feel free to create a redirect camp. I've had trouble with people not understanding "delete then redirect" lately. There's not a lot of reliable sourcing on which to base the article. Hiding T 13:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cranmer Theological House. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewes Hall

Non-notable institution. Article was previously merged into Reformed Episcopal Church after a merge process in January 2009, but a user has recreated it. Chonak (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, no valid third-party references. Merge if possible, otherwise delete. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 20:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete. This and related cases should be merged into Reformed Episcopal Church, with Andrewes Hall as a redirect. Tb (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. No evidence that subject has individual notability was found on a recent google search. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Specifically, ProQuest verified that these results are unrelated to this institution. I can't find anything RS that meets V. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cranmer Theological House of which it appears to be a branch. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for those who vote keep: Can you indicate whether you would object to a merge to Reformed Episcopal Church in the absence of a fuller article? Tb (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cranmer Theological House (of which it is a branch) if that article survives its AfD; otherwise merge to Reformed Episcopal Church. As a branch of an institution that itself has doubtful notability, this lacks the notability necessary to have its own separate article. --Orlady (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 06:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frequently quoted Bollywood songs

Indiscriminate, trivial list. Fails V, NPOV, and OR. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article could have a purpose if it had references; sadly, there are no examples proving that the article is in any way important or non-trivial. Per Girolamo Savonarola's comments above, this article should be deleted. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 19:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an indiscriminate list and directory of trivia, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be notable, but the lack of sources makes it impossible to tell. Probably better suited to WikiQuote. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. Fails WP:NPOV. Salih (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OR --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Hekerui (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Trivial list. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete It would be hard to find a reliable source that shows these are frequently quoted. Priyanath ^talk 02:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 06:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Lam

The kinds of things asserted on the talk page do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability -- An Interview in a magazine published by a vanity press lulu.com, appearing on a cover of a nonnotable book, short films and videos of nonnotable people on nonnotable websites.... Just vanitycruft. DreamGuy (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was just about to nominate this, but you beat me to it while I was busy FFDing the image. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. I42 (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Non-notable model/actress, per DreamGuy's and I42's comments above. The image needs to go, too. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be tagged under WP:CSD#A7. I'd do it, but I'm afraid that that might break the AfD's rules. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 19:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7, there is no notability - so tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability whatsoever. (410 youtube subscribers "and counting"?!?!) Needs coverage in independent, reliable sources. None provided, none found. I removed the book cover as the file page gave fair use for describing the book. As a result, I'll leave myself out of giving an opinion on a speedy. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "best known as a youtube cook" is not my idea of notability. Not mentioned anywhere other than myspace, and a few other social networking sites, as far as I can tell. tempodivalse [☎] 20:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete I've removed the A7 tag since I think there's enough of a claim being made that she might not be A7able but the end result isn't that different. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 Lots of claims being made, none of them reasonable (410 YouTube hits doesn't make one famous, or I'd be VERY famous by now. Interview in a magazine from a self-publisher is also not noteworthy, etc) -- Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J-14 (Modesto)

This article is irrelevant. Due to the downturn in the economy it seems as if this building will not be constructed or even considered for construction. Thatslegit (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs provided or found to assert any kind of notability, and the article is full of WP:OR about what impact it may have. I42 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially the same thing that Eddie.willers, I42, and Thatslegit have said above: this is about a proposed building that is not signifigant. If someone had references showing that this building means something, then it could certainly be kept, but for the time being, no such sources exist. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 19:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McKenry

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search (add quotes, keeping them messes up code in external link) brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant information to Colorado Rockies. tedder (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. I42 (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. There are no references for verifiability, and the subject is not notable. Per tedder's comments above, the contents could and should be merged with the Colorado Rockies. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 19:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Colorado Rockies minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor leaguer.--Giants27 ^T/C 20:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:ATHLETE. black ngold29 20:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Specifically, see this article. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the references need to be checked to make sure they are substantial coverage, not just a passing mention. That article doesn't look like it is independent, looks like a team site.--kelapstick (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High ranked prospect by Baseball America who is getting some buzz. I've added a number of refs, and there are quite a few more I didn't add because they didn't expand the article or were behind paywalls.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fabrictramp has added several references to articles from reliable sources that provide significant coverage. BRMo (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor leaguer who does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Colorado Rockies minor league players per usual consensus of minor leaguers who are more notable. Secret ^account 17:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Perry (baseball)

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search (add quotes around Robert Perry, keeping them messes up code in external link) brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor leaguer.--Giants27 ^T/C 18:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines with no prejudice to recreation if he reaches MLB. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. I42 (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge: It's the same story as it was with Michael McKenry's AfD: "There are no references for verifiability, and the subject is not notable. Per tedder's comments above, the contents could and should be merged with the Colorado Rockies." That was me at 19:46 UTC today. The only difference is that this article has external links (that don't make the slightest difference, unfortunately) and Robert Perry is with the San Diego Padres. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:ATHLETE. black ngold29 20:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Specifically, see this interview and this CSTV article. Cunard (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the references need to be checked to make sure they are substantial coverage, not just a passing mention.--kelapstick (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect somewhere. I can't even find evidence this player has played at the AA level (the article had an incorrect current team). I've added some refs and a link to a scout.com interview, but I'm not seeing enough that's more than just a passing mention to meet notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor leaguer who does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear consensus. The opinion is pretty much split. Note I've taken JamesBurns out of the equation. I'd suggest interested parties continue the discussion at the article talk page to work out the best way to deal with the content of the article, be that merging or reatining as a separate article. The consensus seems to be that the information within the article is worth retainig, therefore the rest can be worked out through consensus and tools in an editorial toolbox rather than an admin's one. Hiding T 11:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rod (Avenue Q)

Character is not notable on its own; no information here that's not in Avenue Q. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 18:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~Delete~~ per DHowell ~~not independently notable, and not a likely search term as is; adequately covered at Avenue Q~~. JJL (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge: Honestly, I'm not sure. The character is an important part of Avenue Q, which is highly notable. However, it doesn't seem to have much of a purpose by itself, so merging it is a possibility. I'm undecided, but as more of an inclusionist than a deletionist, I think that we might as well keep the article. It needs work though, so if someone has the time to fix it up, I would support the article. Otherwise, the article should be merged. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just like to point out that there's been a merge proposal tag on this article for over nine months now, which was never discussed at all. I think at this point that there's nothing left to merge anyway--all the information seems to be included in the main article already. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 04:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing left to merge and not independently notable. JamesBurns (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Redirect If material is already merged, the history should go right along with the merge. As for the plausibility of the redirect. The existence of Rod (disambiguation) were the character could be reasonably listed would make it useful. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a matter of fact, the character is listed on the disambig page, but I would argue that it doesn't really belong there--there are plenty of fictional characters named "Rod" out there, but he's the only one listed. I would support a redirect, though. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 20:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new "Characters in " article. The main article on the show is already a little cumbersome, and the character descriptions there minimal. Not that this article is a good one, because apparently a good deal of the point of this character --and others--is that they're parodies of much more notable fictional character from Sesame Street, and it doesn't mention it. Discussions of this should be found and added. But in any event, let's get this settled before we have to deal with articles on all the other characters so we can have some degree of consistency. At this point we only have Trekkie Monster. DGG (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all character pages. They say nothing notable that isn't stated in the Avenue Q article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Strong keep This puppet was "interviewed" by The New York Times, had significant coverage in the Los Angeles Times, moderated a debate between puppet versions of John Kerry and George W. Bush, attended the 2004 Republican National Convention where he was described as "New York's most famous (and perhaps only) gay Republican puppet" by USA Today... Rod is plainly notable. DHowell (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I submit that the all of these links are to instances of self-publicity by the show's producers, and are therefore not independent of their subject. A direct quote from the CTV.ca article on the puppet debate: "Like the weather, the reasons for an 'Avenue Q' puppet debate — other than pure publicity stunt — were cloudy." The purpose of the three "RNC" articles (from NY Times, LA Times, and USA Today) all seem to be to draw attention to the fact that the GOP delegates didn't go and see Avenue Q during the convention. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 05:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, the puppet debate is already covered at Avenue Q#Avenue Q promotional events. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 05:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whatever the purpose of the coverage, it's still significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The guideline does not give an exemption for "publicity" coverage. None of the newspapers were required to print this "self-publicity" in their papers, they chose to do so because they felt it was "worthy of notice". DHowell (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing presented. Perhaps not Kermit the frog but in puppetland he's huge. And given Bert and Ernie are neither confirming or denying the gay rumors this is likely the most famous gay puppet in the world. -- Banjeboi 06:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Skiasaurus. All the facts are covered in the Avenue Q article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~fl 09:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mustache rock

Non-notable genre, essentially. I can't find any evidence of it actually existing except for some silly "popstrology" site. Ironholds (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This kind of stuff practically amounts to vandalism. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs expanding and addtional references need adding - but Google shows they are there. [Note also the alternative spelling "Moustache"]. Rescue, do not delete. I42 (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tried looking for sources using both "moustache" and "mustache" and came up with nothing but blogs, Last.fm and other such unreliable sources. WP:MADEUP genre again. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [25], [26], [27]. I42 (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment In reverse order... the third is a non-notable blog about a band that "self-describes" as mustache rock (WP:MADEUP, WP:NEO); the second is an article about the very same band, again admitting that the band believes themselves to have invented an entirely new genre (which is therefore non-notable; we're having fun with this one over at the Wicca music AfD); the third is the most interesting. It actually appears to be commercially published, which is promising, but given that the bands on their list are evidently better described by other genre terms I'm tempted to believe that the article is a spoof of a number of bands, rather than a legitimate descritpion of a genuine genre. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Complete Bollocks - sheesh! Eddie.willers (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of publishing the article of Mustache Rock. I respect your concerns on the actual existence of this music genre. However, I have done a large amount of scholarly and non-scholarly research on this topic. I have not completed my edits and only put up the description of the term as a start. The completed article will be posted a week from today (4/23), I will post my rationale for my content as well on the discussion page for those of you who are concerned. Thank you.Obscuremusic149 (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obscuremusic149 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OWN. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-existent genre with no reliable sources to its existence. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit if you find any information. I understand that I am not the only user who can edit this page, it is a work in progress. 150.135.92.25 (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an article on moustache rock with no mention of Freddie Mercury? Anyway, this appears to be a made up genre with no significant 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Not even the rock-god Lemmy! Pah! Eddie.willers (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs expansion and verification, but this talk page suggests that such expansion is forthcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.234 (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Article seems to have been written as a joke. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - Article seems to be valid; let author continue publishing to establish the validity of his/her subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jestervr (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Genre appears to be made up. Also I am concerned with the possibility of sock puppeting occurring here, the last two keep votes are both by users whose only edits appear to be on this page, both comments urging us to listen to Obscuremusic49's comment to let him continue to edit the page. Seems very suspicious. Tej68 (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the article was verifiable, the consensus within the debate below was that the coverage found was not enough to justify an article in Wikipedia. Should further coverage be found, there would be no prejudice against a recreated article utilising new sourcing. Hiding T 11:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Baumgardner

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor leaguer.--Giants27 ^T/C 18:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. I42 (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Cunard (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the references need to be checked to make sure they are substantial coverage, not just a passing mention.--kelapstick (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above comments, player does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there are a ton of passing mentions in a gnews search, I couldn't find anything more than that in the first half dozen pages of hits. I did add a link to scout.com ranking him among the top 50 prospects for the Rockies, but I'd really like to see something more substantial than just that.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's a full debate of the issues, and the general consensus is that this article covers a topic of note. Hiding T 10:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–Romania relations

While the Armenians of Romania do indeed have a long and illustrious history, there is zero evidence hinting at a notable relationship between the modern-day Republic of Armenia and Romania, so this should be deleted. The one salient point, the presence of embassies, is covered at Diplomatic missions of Armenia and Diplomatic missions of Romania. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We desperately need better guidelines about when bilateral relationships are notable so as to stop having so very many of these on AfD. In any case, this meets the general notability guidelines. See ARMENIA-ROMANIA CULTURAL TIES, Armenian President visits Romania, they have bilateral military cooperation [28], there's plenty on Lexis-Nexis (email me for more on that), substantial economic ties [29]. In short, this is a notable relationship and there is plenty of coverage. Cool3 (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link has nothing to do with the modern states, but with the diaspora community. The second mentions a routine bilateral visit that doesn't really constitute evidence of a notable relationship - certainly not something one could write an article about. The third is nothing very concrete: basically a ministerial meeting. The last, again, is ceremonial, symbolic fluff about a "Chamber of Commerce". None of this is convincing evidence that any sort of article, beyond the trivial, could be written on the subject. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is signing a pact for bilateral military cooperation not significant? That's a big deal in international relations. Cool3 (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - See also [30] (which is oddly formatted on my screen, look at the lefthand column). See [31] "Robert Kocharian said, Armenian-Romanian relations play a particular role in the context of Armenia’s European integration." See [32], a significant report on a meeting of FMs (also [33]). A bilateral agreement on tourism [34]. Even more significantly, I present the following:"the Prime Minister noted that the Armenian-Romanian friendship was deeply rooted in history and it was not by accident that Romania was the first State to recognize the independence of the Republic Armenia."[35]. I can continue, but I hope that satisfies you. Cool3 (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Depends on the pact. North Atlantic Treaty yes, Romania-Armenia pact probably not. The first link is just news - a news brief from Radio Free Europe; no evidence the agreement is at all noteworthy. The second link is a blog and anyway, of course the President is going to say nice words when he accredits an ambassador. The rest are again blogs, primary sources and the like showcasing handshakes, friendly declarations, routine documents, and the like. Yes, the relationship exists; no, there's not enough there to construct a coherent article in narrative prose. (But the AfD does run for a week, so I'd be happy to be proven wrong.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seriously? Romania was the first country to recognize Armenian independence. That is a huge deal. We have a whole article on Armenians of Romania = significant historical and cultural ties. They've signed numerous bilateral agreements on trade, tourism and the military. They've exchanged ambassadors. Relations with Romania are important to Armenian integration into the EU (the President of Armenia even said so). Yes, one of those links is a blog, but it's a blog holding an archive of a story from a news organizations. In your opinion, do any countries have significant bilateral relations? US-UK, I mean come on, of course the President of the US is going to say nice things about the Queen, and all those agreements over the years... just fluff. Cool3 (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That Romania was the first to extend recognition is nice, but couldn't that be noted in a table of this sort? Yes, the Armenians of Romania are actually notable, but have zero to do with Armenia-Romania relations -- there was no Armenian state between 1375 and 1991. The presence of ambassadors is recorded at the respective "Diplomatic missions of..." articles, while the bilateral agreements - as I've stressed before - are a routine feature of international relations, happening every week of every year, and not inherently evidence of anything beyond a peaceful but dull relationship. That the President of Armenia said Romania would help his country enter the EU isn't that surprising - he did have to say something when receiving Romania's ambassador, and of course he was going to make some friendly noises about the EU (not that they have a realistic chance, and not that Romania has that much influence over Brussels, but never mind that).
- And yes, I have no problem with actual articles like Cuba–Venezuela relations or France–Thailand relations - but it's really helpful when relations are documented as such by sources, and don't involve editors stringing together disparate bits of news in an attempt to project the appearance of notability. Still, if something decent can be made of this, I'll gladly even withdraw the nomination. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That "stringing together" is a result of the creation of these stubs and the fact that dozens, if not hundreds, have been brought up at AfD in the past couple of days. Some editors would prefer to try and save an article by improving, even if on the fly, than recreating and running the risk of a speedy. You'll see, for instance, that both Marcusmax and I have voted delete on a number of them, so it's not like we're advocating inherent notability for these stubbies. Now, that some of the rescue efforts are attempts to "project the appearance of notability" (my italics, your words) is a. not a nice thing to say and b. puts the cart before the horse: some of these X-Y relations articles are saved, and for the right reasons. In other words, there was a reality behind the appearance, as there may well be here. I wish I had the energy or the talent to make something notable of this one. I'm not entirely sure what the proper format ought to be for these articles, and I'm unable to figure it out right now, given a hefty case of WP:RSV. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My wording there was indeed incautious - I didn't mean to impute sinister motives to anyone. If kept (which seems likely at this point), I look forward to seeing what if any expansion can happen over the coming months. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry Biruitorul, I know you're not like that, and I apologize for not reading your words in a more friendly manner--I blame my splitting headache and a cold. I've come to know you as someone who doesn't mind changing their mind when presented with evidence, and I hope I'm the same way. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No harm done, Drmies, and I hope your head improves soon. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The historic relations, which are admitted by the nom. to be notable, also come within the title of the article. One would expect every pair of countrieswithin this region to have significant relationships with each other. Not the right choice for which ones to remove. DGG (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I admitted no notability for the Armenia-Romania relationship (which only began in 1992), but for the Armenians in what is now Romania, who have lived there for about 700 years. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--I'm swayed by the proximity, first of all (geography here is a pretty good indicator that important ties exist), and second by the references provided by Cool3. Sure, some of it may be "ceremonial fluff"--but really, that's the business of diplomacy, it's all ceremonial fluff to prevent us from constantly killing each other. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article may have been created in bad faith, but it meets WP:N. Nick-D (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call it bad faith, which is a rather serious charge, just perhaps a little carelessly. DGG (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who created it (who has since been confirmed to have been a sock puppet) had been repeatedly asked not to create unreferenced stubs of questionable notability (and been blocked at least once for doing so) at the time they created this article. Deliberatly creating bad articles and leaving it to others to find the most basic of sources to meet WP:N is bad faith in my book. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedliy deleted as A7. (non-admin closure) Ipatrol (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Wiegand's Nursery

Nothing that can really be regarded as an RS that states notabiltiy, only little directories and other buisness lists. Ipatrol (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per the sources added by Fabrictramp (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Hearne

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search (add quotation marks, using them in the external link messed up the code) brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor leaguer.--Giants27 ^T/C 18:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Cunard (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the references need to be checked to make sure they are substantial coverage, not just a passing mention.--kelapstick (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball (unless MEX Mid-season all-star is being selected for an all-star game, which I don't think it is) which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a ref to the MEX Mid-season all-star award line that indicates it is a selection for the all-star game.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added several refs and a couple more awards. Also a link to an article about him in the Springfield News-Leader. Add to that the fact that some people consider the Mexican League to be the highest national league in Mexico (which would meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines), and I think we've got notability licked.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As noted by Fabrictramp, he's received significant coverage from several reliable sources. (However, the Mexican League is a Class AAA minor league, so it's not a top-level national league in the same sense as Nippon Professional Baseball.) BRMo (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With the added sources and the award, he appears to squeak by WP:GNG (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collin DeLome

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search (add quotation marks, using them in the external link messed up the code) brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor leaguer.--Giants27 ^T/C 18:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the references need to be checked to make sure they are substantial coverage, not just a passing mention.--kelapstick (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above comments, player does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball (unless NYP Mid-season all-star is being selected for an all-star game, which I don't think it is) which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is, in fact, an All-Star game. Specifically, the All-Star game of the New York-Penn League. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as an amateur, Southland Conference Player of the Year in 2006.Link. Also subject of extensive coverage in numerous reliable sources, including full profiles in the [Beaumont Enterprise, the Port Arthur News, and the 2009 version of Baseball America's annual prospect handbook (available online here for subscribers). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to withdraw nomination, HBWS shows the player passes the GNG (sources added to article), however there are still two delete !votes.--kelapstick (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HBWS. Spanneraol (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added by HBWS. Also, I corrected the link to the MiLB player profile in the article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet Monkey Fight

Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources for recently formed troupe. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not significantly covered. Sources are to Facebook (2), a Blogger, YouTube, and the other three all seem to be self-published. TheAE talk/sign 17:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There does not seem to be enough independent coverage yet to establish notability in Wikipedia terms. I have discussed this on my talkpage with the article creator, and that discussion seems to bear out this conclusion. LadyofShalott ^Weave 17:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I agree with the lady, though I have to protest CoM's blatant attempt at POV-pushing here, riding his well-known hobby-horses of WP:N and, pfff, WP:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 14:07, April 16, 2009

Drmies may be joking. But he lives in the deep south, so it's hard to tell sometimes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Wagler

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search brings up two hits this and this which are about the team not about the player, therefore not passing the general notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, for lack of notability. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable minor leaguer.--Giants27 ^T/C 17:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur as per above and per WP:MLB notability guidelines. Statistical sources alone do not establish notability for minor leaguers. Delete.KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:ATHLETE. black ngold29 20:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the references need to be checked to make sure they are substantial coverage, not just a passing mention.--kelapstick (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I've added a couple more sources to the article, but I'm not finding much to show notability. In looking through the first half dozen pages of hits in the gnews search, I did come up with a couple of possibilities behind paywalls talking about his 18th round selection by the Giants (he didn't sign and was drafted again a year later), but I really think we'd need more than that.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McConnell

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search (add quotation marks, using them in the external link messed up the code) brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. Player does have two "Awards" to his name, in 2005 Baseball America Rookie All-Star (I wouldn't call a rookie all-star award from a magazine a major award), and the 2005 PIO Post-Season All-Star (not sure what that is). kelapstick (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's pretty exhaustive reasoning. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kansas City Royals minor league players. His post season award is from the rookie class Pioneer League. Seems like a decent enough prospect to maintain on team page. 17:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete non-notable minor leaguer.--Giants27 ^T/C 17:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. black ngold29 20:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Cunard (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the references need to be checked to make sure they are substantial coverage, not just a passing mention.--kelapstick (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above comments, player does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. There's a high school baseball/football player of the same name who might be more notable (and is causing havoc with my searches). I'm getting lots of ghits for both players, but the ones for this one are just passing mentions. I'm not quite convinced the two awards add up to notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G12 by NawlinWiki. Non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wildwater Rafting Ltd.

Unashamed advertisement, largely copied from the company's website, by an author who says on the talk page "Working for this company i have been asked to create this page... " Promotional tone and COI are not themselves reason for deletion, but I find no indication that the company is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, e.g Google News has nothing about this company and Google largely listing-type mentions (not all this company). Of the two independent references cited, canoekayak.com mentions the rivers but not this firm, National Geographic only mentions one of their resorts in a list of over 30 places to stay. Wikipedia is not here to provide free advertising listings. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. No references found. I took the liberty of removing the section that advertised their resorts, and a paragraph that gave their calendar for trips on a certain river. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those dates are not when we run trips those are the only dates that have been negotiated with the Federal Wildlife comission for ANYONE to run on that river! [this offered by ZippityZach]
  - And? That information should be in Cheoah River then. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced spam. I also seem to remember the same company having a similar article deleted a few months ago. The original editor's statement "I work for the Company and therefore have rights to use information from the website" rings a faint bell, but I could be wrong. Yintaɳ 17:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We did have a site up and no one could figure out why it was gone. No one has offered to help clean up an article. [this offered by ZippityZach]
  - Your company website is not a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyright infringement of the company's web site (which could be addressed through proper licensing or an article rewrite) and as unsubstantiated notability (which could be addressed with reliable sources). I got the same lack of independent noteworthy search results as JohnCD, and no hits on Google Finance. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ZippityZach: If this page is to be deleted I would like help as to how to better create another one that is worthy of a website. If you were to go to Google and search whitewater rafting or white water rafting or any variation our site pops up in the top five or six spots each time. You can allow a business like NOC to advertise on your site with no problem but when I put up a site and add verifiable links and even clean up the copy so its not advertising you want to delete me. This is unfair and I will fight it. If you decide to take down this site I will protest NOC's listing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantahala_Outdoor_Center ZippityZach (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please have a look at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Still, you have a point in that that article is also unreferenced--though it's a lot less spammy than the one under discussion here. Of course, a problem here is that everyone knows the NOC (including me--it's hard to miss it on that drive along the Nantahala), and chances are there is plenty of coverage in independent sources. However, I placed a couple of tags on it; you're free to propose it for AfD... Drmies (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - db-copyvio, now tagged, no indication on talk page that permission has been granted yet. Also non-notable per nom, fails WP:GNG, but if you deleted the copyrighted stuff there'd be nothing left on which to judge. MuffledThud (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unfortunately, the sources added do not constitute reliable sources that can be used to justify an article. If Evileyes 247 or anyone else would like to work on this article in their user space, find reliable sources, and try again, I will be happy to provide them with a copy of this article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verve communications

Non-notable outsourcing company. Could not find significant coverage by reliable sources but the search for sources was confounded by name shared by multiple companies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beat me to it. My own good faith search also produced multiple non-notable companies not believed to be interconnected at all. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the minimum requirements set out in notability or company-specific notability guidelines. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP i have added so many refrences to show that its a notable company. what else do u want me to add. about the content in the page, I will be slowly filling it up. --Evileyes 247 21:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

- Note, several of the references you added are to different copies of the exact same press release. None of the references are substantive; they don't seem to discuss the company in detail, merely mention it in passing, like "such and such an office park opened this month, and Verve Communications is one of the tenants". Also, you may want to change the wording of your vote. If you are going to provide references to prove this company is notable, then you should read WP:N carefully; the most important words in the entire guideline are independent and significant coverage and reliable sources (see WP:RS). So far, each of your references seems to violate either the non-trivial or the reliable parts of that. You can find my name on the internet; it doesn't mean I am notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I am all for improving this article and finding enough sources so it can be kept. I think that would be a wonderful thing. I just don't see where the sources you added help to that end. Your cute little initialism for the word "Why" may be missed, and someone may mistakenly think you are voting to delete the article as well. You may want to replace that with "keep". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much for your reply, ill take a not of that and will add more refrences to this page and will try to keep it on wikipedia. "I am all for improving this article and finding enough sources so it can be kept. I think that would be a wonderful thing." i liked this line.. thts encouraging. thanks again. :) --Evileyes 247 19:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, concur with arguments above. Hiding T 11:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hornshow

Article about a music genre that cites no reliable sources. I tagged the page for a proposed deletion but it was deleted by the author. I am familiar with most of the bands, and I know that horns play a central part to their instrumentation. However, only sources cited are either band pages or a last.fm page about the genre. A reputable music journalist would have had to use this term in an non-trivial fashion for it to be anywhere near verifiable, unless this kind of recognition can be established, it would have to be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since as far as I can tell this term, this genre, does not exist in the sense of WP:N. No sources, none to be found, so it's OR as well. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not an established genre within alternative rock and I can't find any reliable sources that make it one. Yintaɳ 17:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP; can't find any reliable sources at all. It's always telling when one of the three notable bands is a redlink and the references are to one of the band's websites, Myspace and Last.fm. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — lacks reliable sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Zornes

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an A, and therefore does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines.

Good faith search news search brings up a few hits, but are all passing mention (not significant coverage), no article specifically about him, therefore not passing the general notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor leaguer.--Giants27 ^T/C 17:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:ATHLETE. black ngold29 20:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Cunard (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the references need to be checked to make sure they are substantial coverage, not just a passing mention.--kelapstick (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above comments, player does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've fixed a number of factual errors in the article (wrong link to MiLB profile, incorrect current team). I'll look for sources showing notability later today or tomorrow.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete (I had more time than I thought). I'm conflicted on this one. On the keep side we have the scout.com interview, the College World Series appearance, and a tremendous number of gnews hits. On the delete side, other than the scout.com interview I can't find anything showing notability. My gut feeling (subject to change if more sources appear) is that this is a case of "not yet" -- we may well hear much more about this player in the future, but it's premature for a Wikipedia article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to San Diego Padres minor league players. Fabrictramp, this is the perfect reason for those minor league articles.. Players that have sources and are solid prospects but aren't quite ready for a full wikipedia article. Spanneraol (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with merge/redirect on these as long as we have a logical target. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 08:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristhiam Linares

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an A- Does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. Good faith search brings up two hits this and this which are about the team not about the player, therefore not passing the general notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ATHLETE. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it pass WP:ATHLETE, single-A baseball isn't really fully proffesional or the upper tier. Secret ^account 17:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable minor leaguer.--Giants27 ^T/C 17:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE Secret ^account 17:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:ATHLETE. black ngold29 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've cleaned up and sourced the article, but I'm not finding sources that show notability. I didn't have a lot of time to work on this one, so I'm more than happy to reconsider if someone comes up with better sources.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor leaguer who does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 08:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian general election, 2010

It's a complete futurology. No information is available yet (maybe only the day of the election). There will be the election, for sure. But the article is full of unsourced information, it's not verifiable. All "possible candidates" are there just because they are famous. But the parties actually haven't decided anything yet, it's still pure speculation. In portuguese wikipedia, it was decided to delete the article because it's WP:CRYSTAL: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Eleições presidenciais no Brasil em 2010. Takkyuu (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Takkyuu (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL and re-write once its over. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of future events have articles, such as the Olympics, and elections have been no different. Hell, at least this one has a date, unlike this article. If there is information that you feel is "crystal balling" remove it, but this seems to me a clearly useful article on a notable subject. TastyCakes (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common sense says this article is non-controversial. ... From the nom: No information is available yet (maybe only the day of the election). That just doesn't make sense. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the first point in WP:CRYSTAL. An article about a notable event that is certain to take place in roughly a year is not crystalballery. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I'd be for removing that grid about the future candidates. That grid is really the only crystalballery in the article, and if the US elections are any indication, it's not going to be for sure until we know who is running in this election. --63.64.30.2 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above arguments

Comment If kept, IMHO every unsourced information should be removed (like the grid). Probably only the date is available. The rest is complete spaculation. The grid was even bigger (and funnier) in portuguese Wikipedia. I'm gonna remove it right now and try to find sources. But it's still unsourced. Algébrico (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Home and Away. Ambivalent on target - material is in history for the merge Fritzpoll (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Austin (Home and Away)

Non notable outside the show its on. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 16:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect or delete There are 144 characters in Category:Home and Away characters, one article worse than the other. Instead of just deleting this article here and be done with it, the whole bunch of character articles should be considered for a merger into lists, regardless of notability, until notability is established. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete as unlikely seach term. Rinse and repeat per sgeureka's suggestion. Sarilox (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a trout slap. Deletions aren't compatible with mergers. Besides, assuming there are more people called Brendan Austin and assuming the existence of a dab page, the article title would make for a very plausible redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 17 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 15:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect A lack of notability independent from a TV show means it shouldn't be covered independently. But the nominator didn't show it shouldn't be covered altogether. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but preserve material I agree with Sgeureka that we should not be doing this one at a time, nor should we necessarily let one sample character that might be atypical go as a precedent. (I'm not going to work on a show I've never seen, but I get the feeling from the article that there's going to be comment from advocacy groups about this one which will give him at any rate some context.) I also agree the article can not possibly stand on its own. These series can often be comprehended best through articles divided by characters, not by episode- and for this a sentence or so in a large combined list is unacceptably brief. So it should be a real merge. DGG (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G12 Blatant copyright violation of [36] — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanton Low

This article appears to be a direct copy of text from some other source, although that source cannot be found. It represents either a copyright violation or original research. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of Winton

An in-universed plot summary fork cobbled together from a number of connected science fiction novels about a fictional family. In as much as the fictional family is important to related novels and their plots, they should be mentioned in the articles on the novels. This kind of extensive, original research detail on a fictional family (which is not covered by any reliable sources in a way that would establish notability independent from the novels) is not fit for an encyclopedia intended to be grounded in the real world and cover fiction from a real world perspective. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Debresser (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 16:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 16:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; one might also be able to argue that this is a copyvio; see the source at the bottom; at best it is a heap of original research. Cheers, Jack Merridew
Delete, the nominator is correct. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it was non-fiction, it would be perfectly valid, so I see no reason why fictional articles should be held to a different standard. The only difference you normally find between fictional and non-fictional articles, is that the fictional ones are often more well known, and are usually more interesting, receiving far more page views. This is information valid to a series covering many novels, not just a single creation, and there is enough information to warrant its own article. Dream Focus 17:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it were the House of Windsor, you would be correct; but it's not. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate combination article. This is the way to go for minor and background characters. The nom. admits there will be reliable sources. Important elements of important fiction merit articles. And all versions of the unfinished WP:FICT admit this if secondary sources are available, as they are here. Not fit for an encyclopedia is classic IDONTLIKEIT, as are almost all the other arguments against characters in this series. The series of nominations follows the classic pattern of first wanting sources, and then if there are sources, not accepting them. DGG (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where the nom said that; the RS he's referring to would appear to be ones concerning the books(s) in general. Also, I've seen there are ghits about an actual house (building) with this name (aka Winton House); 'ware. Importance of an element of fiction is establishing be someone independent taking significant note of the element and commenting in significant depth about it as reliable source; I don't see that here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to List_of_Honorverse_characters#White_to_Wilson. --EEMIV (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've transwikified it to http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/House_of_Winton , although editors there are not sure if they want to keep the long list there (interested editors are invited to join the discussion on article's talk). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love this comment from one of the fans at the Honor wiki had about this article "names were wrong, a number of typos were in it, and some of it seems to be directly copied from The Universe of Honor Harrington." Which is exactly the kind of problem when we get into these pastiche of fiction articles, on topics about which no independent authors have shed any light.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the nominator, Jack and Bali ultimate. I'll also add that cobbling together an article like this from various bits and pieces scattered throughout the work of fiction, is beginning to wander into WP:SYNTH territory. Reyk _YO! 22:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree, except to note that Bali and the nom are one and the same. Delete Eusebeus (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list of characters and/or the list of organizations. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unless someone can add a few independant refs, in case keep. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jack Merridew. I'm a great fan, and an accurate (!) article on this on the appropriate Wiki (ie not Wikipedia) is very welcome, but without reliable sources independent of the books, etc, this is inappropriate as a Wikipedia article and indeed does wander into WP:Synthy territory. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Penn Radio. MBisanz ^talk 08:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Tuesday

Massive amount of unsourced fancruft that's loaded with weasel words, overinflated claims, and doesn't appear to have any notability whatsoever independent of Penn Radio. Deserves a paragraph in that article, maybe, certainly no more than that. Chardish (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to establish notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd never heard of this radio station or the day, but I found the article interesting and amusing. There is obviously far too much material to have any significant merge into the radio station's article. Article needs citations and could stand to use some serious chopping, but on the whole I think it is good enough to have its own article. TastyCakes (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this is entirely unreferenced fancruft. TastyCakes, it may be interesting and fun, but there is no coverage of this at all. "Article needs citations" is a serious understatement. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For this, I call WP:NEO. Maybe Penn Gillette came up with it on his radio show, but that seems to be the only sourcing of this, is a radio show by Penn Gillette. I find it interesting, if anything, that we have much in the way of weasel words in an article about something vaguely related to primates. --63.64.30.2 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, neologism. JamesBurns (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Like TastyCakes, I was amused by this article. But it's not Tuesday and no references support its notability. Hazir (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge and redirect to Penn Radio. While the current coverage is somewhat excessive, there is no reason why something closer to the length of this version couldn't be merged to the main article, and there is no reason not to have a redirect for this plausible search term. DHowell (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom seems to be based on issues that can be fixed by editing, and policy is that we shouldn't delete stuff we can fix. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Iceland relations

another random combination of countries with no evidence of any diplomatic ties. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 17 years and two non-resident ambassadors do not make for notable relations between countries on the world stage. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - random, no hint of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but (sigh!) it's a waste of time - group AfDs always get derailed, and these "X-Y relations are relations between X and Y" articles get created faster than they can be AfD'd individually. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I could not find any evidence of this relationship being meaningful or notable. JohnCD, I understand your despair, but you're not entirely correct, I think: we're dealing with a mess left by a now-banned editor, and a whole bunch of people on both sides--some trying to delete a lot of them, some trying save a lot (or some) of them. But I don't think they're being churned out as we speak, are they? And I'm sure there's a couple of admins with "CSD#4" engraved on their knives. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for a trickle, the big floods have indeed stopped; right now we're just going through a very big cleanup operation. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is Hilary blocked now? I saw the discussion on the talk page, but did not see a block notice. A block would improve the level of discourse a little bit--I don't care that much for sarcasm. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only temporarily, though I bet that block log will grow with time. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This particular one as unlikely to have any sources to show notability. We have to go one at a time, because some of those nominating articles in this series do not in general check for sources and have nominated some obviously keepable (and kept) articles along with the others, in their indiscriminate actions. This particular nomination, however, seems perfectly appropriate. The article should not have been created. DGG (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources establish this as a notable relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheesh. JJL (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, there is a discussion about a general policy on such articles. --Tone 21:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete - both are members of Council of Europe, and have full embassies, but not much else in common. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a clear-cut case of copyright infringement from multiple sources. See [37], [38], [39]. Deleted under WP:CSD#G12 with no prejudice against making this a redirect to sign language or recreating as a sourced, non-copyright violation article on the profession of the sign language interpreter. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sign language interpreters

Mostly overlaps American Sign Language and Deaf culture. A lot of unsourced POV. No citations. Poorly written. PROD was deleted by an anon less than 24 hours after posting, but no changes were made. No changes made in over two weeks since PROD was deleted. Creator of article was notified of PROD, but did not respond. Ward3001 (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Ward3001 (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not completely rewritten. The current version not only has the above-mentioned problems, it smells like a copyvio. However, there is in principle no reason we couldn't have an article on the profession of sign language interpreter. Just not this one. —An gr 05:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sign language. That page is much more comprehensive and neutral. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 06:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Iceland relations

another random country pairing. note this: It is estimated that around 70 Australians are currently living in Iceland. Tourist traffic in both directions is low. There is a small Icelandic community in Australia of around 450 people. http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/iceland/iceland_brief.html LibStar (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability of subject not established. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, as evidenced by non-resident or simply non-existent ambassadors. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as usual, no substantive notability has been demonstrated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see any evidence of notability. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another inappropriate one among the articles. DGG (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources establish this as a notable relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither low numbers of tourists or resident nationals make for a non-notable relationship. Nor does low trade, low defence links etc. etc. Nor does the size of the nations involved; even "tiny" nations like Australia can have notable bilateral foreign relations (This was seriously put up as a ground for deletion in an earlier discussion on a similar article!). All of these claims are entirely irrelevant and subjective. Notability is established through reliable sources created by people willing to write on the subject. While these have not been found, the nomination does not even seem to suggest that sources have been looked for. There is a real sense of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in these nominations, which is not a ground for deletion. I wonder how much thought is going into the deletion discussions for these articles and how much of it is cookie cutter responses. Each article should be considered on its merits and this rush to delete needs some tempering. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To accuse me of crusade is to accuse me of acting in bad faith. I have nominated a few of these relation articles but not all. Consistent with WP policy they are up for discussion for consensus to keep or delete. Seems like you WP:ILIKEIT without providing any reliable sources to back it up. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't accused anybody of anything, you are not the only one on a quest to delete these articles at the moment. Nor I have said this article should be kept (my edit comment of keep was in error, I merely meant to make a a comment. Check the diff if you like, my comment was not marked with Keep.). Not sure how that equates to "I like it". My point stands, the nomination for deletion is subjective, contains systemic bias and does not actually address any reason for why the article should be deleted under Wikipedia's deletion policy. If the size of resident populations etc. is relevant then what is your magic figure? 5,000, 10,000, 100,000? If there are relevant reliable sources then the article should be kept; if not then it should be deleted. None of this is actually addressed in the nomination for deletion, nor does there seem to have been any effort whatsoever to assess the notability of the articles under that rationale. The standard response appears to be "Delete" Not notable" without any evidence of thought whatsoever. This is poor form. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More non-notable Australia–Foobar relations. WWGB (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:N. A Google search of 'Australia Iceland' only turned up a single incident (a joint Australian-Iceland-United States geothermal technology sharing agreement: [40] is an example). As Australia is English-speaking country and Iceland is a developed country I don't think that systematic bias is a problem here as Wikipedia covers both countries in depth. Nick-D (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, there is a discussion about a general policy on such articles. --Tone 21:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Äikiä

A minor murder victim from Sweden, notable for only one event. It's possible the murder is notable (though it looks like news to me, rather than worthy of encyclopedic coverage) but the victim certainly isn't. J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:N/CA. JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BIO1E doesn't apply since the article is about the event and not a biography. The article clearly isn't news and whether it's a notable criminal act is something only Swedish people can really say. I'd prefer to see some Swedish editors before a decision is taken here. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cited WP:BIO1E because of the article's title: if it is kept because the crime is considered encyclopedically notable, I guess it should be retitled "Murder of... " JohnCD (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - highly publicised criminal case with many turns. Definitely the criminal case of the year (and possibly a few years around) in Sweden. However, the Swedish Wikipedia version sv:Fallet Bobby - "Case Bobby" - is on the case rather than the boy. Perhaps it fulfills notability criteria more clearly if the same is done here, which doesn't look too difficult to do. Tomas e (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The move to Bobby murder by MarkusBJoke looks good in my eyes, and should make it more clear which the relevant notability criteria are. Tomas e (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per tomas e. And the fact that it is one of the most talked about crimes in swedish history.--Judo112 (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because this is a swedish crime and not an american crime doesnt mean that Bobby is less notable than let say Shanda Sharer or Melissa Huckaby etc etc.. Their are some work to do but that can be fixed this is not a delete worthy article by far.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium–Uruguay relations

another random country pairing with no evidence of a notable relationship. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability of subject not established. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assume good faith on the part of the editors; there is no reason for deletion pressure to produce documentation for this article to exist. Belgium is a major post-colonial power and major trading nation. There is probably some football history as well, from the era of Uruguay dominance in World Cup competition. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Belgium a major colonial power and trading nation with respect to Uruguay, though? And football has nothing to do with international diplomatic relations, unless someone signs a peace accord at the World Cup? These points aside, some of these articles have been around for over a year without any work done on them, if pressure is what it takes to get them fleshed out from their current state which practically begs them to be listed here, then so be it. I would assume more good faith on the creating editor had they simply not been cookie-cuttered onto the wiki with virtually the same (limited) information in each one. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"there is no reason for deletion pressure to produce documentation for this article to exist."? Obviously there is. The article should've had documentation from the moment it was created. The article creator has done this before, so they should know better. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. The work will get done. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of actual notability to the relationship presented. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Idle speculations are not a substitute for sources to show that this is a subject of interest. WillOakland (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 08:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of centenarians

This list is just getting bigger and bigger; it is now more than 150K. Does it have any advantages over Category:Centenarians?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this contains dead centenarians as well, I see the list being impossible to maintain, particularly with advances in medical technology making long life more common (what will this page look like 10 years from now?) Delete. - Chardish (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no problem with maintaining the list-- as new notable centenarians come up, just add them to the list. Where is the maintainability problem? You also make a arguement that in the future there might be more and more centenarians due to medical advances. If this turns out to be the case, and being a centenarian is no longer something special, then we can deal with that when it happens. If in 30 years, there are thousands and thousands of notable centenarians, then we can have this discussion again. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - (1) Size of the list is not a problem. It can always be broken out into multiple lists if necessary. (2) Yes, this list has several advantages over the category. (a) It sub-divides the centenarians, (b) it show additional information that can't be accomplished with a cateogry (age, claim to fame, and which ones are still living), (c) it can also be used for redlinks to articles that need to be written, (d) the tables could be made sortable to sort by age, name etc. I see this as a sourced, useful navigational aid for Centenarians. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOT PAPER, we have techniques for handling any size list. If in 10 years from now, 100 years is no longer significant, then we can keep 100 years for the 20th century, and 110 or whatever years for subsequent periods. DGG (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One of our techniques for handling large lists is to move them out of article space and into category space. What do you think the purpose of category space is, and why do you think we don't have an article for every category? - Chardish (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd much rather find things in a large list than a large category--apparently you prefer the opposite. The solution is to have both. DGG (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Large article size is reason to split, not delete. This list also has information that would not be conveyed in a category, like exact age, profession, claims to notabilty other than age, etc. Lists and categories are synergistic. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I now think we should redirect to Oldest people, see discussion below. --Explodicle (T/C) 21:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Name 5 articles that this list can be split to. Georgia guy (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That would be a topic better suited for the article's talk page, but just off the top of my head, you could divide it up by ages, say 7 pages for 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105+, and 100+ living. Or you could divide it up by living/non-living or you could split the sub-topics into a few different groups etc. This can be talked about when it's necessary. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of centenarians born 1890-1900, List of French centenarians, List of centenarian businesspeople, and... shoot! I can't think of any more! --Explodicle (T/C) 20:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of those look horribly like unencyclopedic cross-categorizations to me (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY).Locke9k (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This is something that should be discussed on the article's talk page, and doesn't seem to relevant to the deletion discussion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why is this any more of an notable or reasonable list than list of ninety year olds? It strikes me at this time as an unencyclopedic cross-categorization between a directory and some kind of age categorization. Locke9k (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the smaller the list the more reasonable it is, and at a certain point it has to get split up. For example, there is no List of artists but there is a Category:Lists of artists that splits them up into manageable groups. If we were cavemen and living to 60 was noteworthy, we could have an list of them too. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unencyclopedic cross-categorization of notability and age. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Locke9k (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since every person listed on Wikipedia needs to be notable, does that mean that all categories/lists of X people are unencyclopedic cross-categorizations of notability and X? --Explodicle (T/C) 21:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes, good question. Let me explain my above statement better. To avoid being a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, the unifying subject of a list of people should be the same as the general basis for the listed peoples' notability. For example, the organizing subject of List of physicists is that the people in the list are all physicists; in addition, each of the people in the list is notable due to the fact that they are physicists. You can find many more examples of this kind. On the other hand, the organizing subject of this list is having attained the age of 100, but according to the intro the people in the list explicitly are notable for something aside from their age. In other words, in the former case, if I were to make a list of people notable for practicing/studying physics, it would be essentially the same as the List of physicists. In this case, if I were to make a list of people notable specifically for having reached the age of 100, it would likely be entirely different than List of centenarians. It is therefore fits the bill for a cross-categorization. Hopefully that addresses the insightful and amusing point you raise above. Locke9k (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One difference is that the list of physicists is only 37K, whereas this list is 160K. Georgia guy (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which perhaps indicates that the article should be split, not deleted.SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What should some of the new articles made by splitting this be titled?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Splitting by nationality is an easy place to start SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like, List of American centenarians?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Why is there this extraordinary focus on the size of this article and on the possibility of splitting? These things have nothing to do with the AFD. The relevant issue is that this is a directory. Its not a list of people who are notable for being centenarians; its a list of people who are notable for a wide variety of reasons and just happen to be centenarians as well. The size is irrelevant; the point is that the article is something WP is very explicitly not, and it should be deleted on that basis. Locke9k (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Lists of Americans should only list people who are notable for how American they are, and Lists of atheists should only list people who are notable for how atheist they are? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. I think a general "List of Americans" is exactly something Wikipedia is not - a directory. A "List of Americans" is exactly a directory; I can't think of anything that fits that bill more. Same thing with "List of Atheists". If there are people such as Richard Dawkins who are in large part prominent due to their outspoken atheism, they belong in that list. If there is a plumber who is notable because he hold the world record for most toilets plumbed, and there is a side note in his article that he happens to be an atheist, he doesn't belong in that list. Otherwise, again, it is exactly a directory. I almost can't imagine anything that could be more of a directory. I don't see any way around this; it seem to me that do argue otherwise we would have to argue that we should ignore WP:NOTDIRECTORY.Locke9k (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just did some homework and now I'm seeing this a bit more clearly. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of people supports your argument regarding centenarian lists; it even uses Lists of atheists as an example. However, since there are still some people notable only for being centenarians, we should not delete. We should first trim everyone who isn't notable as a centenarian off the list, and then decide to keep/merge/redirect from there. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Such people are at articles such as List of the oldest people, Oldest people, etc. Georgia guy (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for having an open mind. In general your suggestion is a good one, but I'm not sure that its the best approach here for the following reason. The article intro presently reads: "The following is a list of centenarians ... known for reasons other than their longevity." This suggests that there are probably no entrees in this list that would be usable under the new criterion for inclusion; the old criterion is the exact, mutually exclusive opposite of the new one. Accordingly, there is probably no salveagable material and we could probably delete and recreate as a new list. Otherwise we would probably end up having to rehash this debate on the talk page over every name in that long list, none of which will end up being included in the new one. Locke9k (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the larger problem with the 'keep and rework' idea is that there is already a page that covers what you have described: Oldest people. In fact, the List of centenarians contains the following disambiguation statement: "For people known exclusively for attaining extreme ages, see Oldest people." So really we should just delete this article let the Oldest people article do what this one really should, since it already is anyway. Locke9k (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I still think a redirect (and the edit history) may be useful, though. --Explodicle (T/C) 21:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke9k - This is not a cross-categorization at all. I see it simply as a list of centenarians; any additional notability for each individual is beside the point. Most certainly they have all been acclaimed for passing the 100-year mark in addition to anything else they have done. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from Centenarian: "The United States currently has the greatest number of centenarians in the world, numbering over 79,000 in the year 2007." So in your view, any centenarian out of the hundreds of thousands in the world can be put in this list? Locke9k (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The issue of the excessive size of this list has been discussed on its talk page. The consensus was that it should be split and afaik at least one user is attempting to organise suitable separate lists. The issue of whether 100 is a more significant age than 99 or any other age is spurious, it's not as if people, notable or not, are mentioned in the press just for reaching 99. DerbyCountyinNZ 22:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep The list has obvious advantages over the category in that it provides a manner of easily comparing ages without clicking each and every article in the category. If the tables are made sortable, you can also easily see who are the oldest and youngest people on the list (in addition to their lifetime). I also don't see a pressing need to delete based on size, when a solution is being discussed. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very useful. I can't wait 'til I make the list! (44 years to go!) Vartanza (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Thibault

Obvious hoax. --aktsu ^(t / c) 12:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —--aktsu ^(t / c) 13:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I will not judge whether or not this is a hoax, but the wikilink to a list of champions being marked as "will kick anyone's ass" or something like that is a strong indication that this is nothing but a vanity page. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since there is not listing of Thibault on the list of UFC champions, it's unlikely this page is valid. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see that the article claims Thibault ever was a champion. What I see is that he is challenging all champions, past or present, in a poorly worded fashion. That's still a delete, but not for the same reason. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does look like a hoax to me. A Google search for the subject's name and "mixed martial arts" returns one hit: this page. Rnb (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax, 'will kick nayone's arse champion' linked to welter weight. --Nate 14 81 09:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax; unsourced and clearly false statements in the article, and the infobox of "Style(s)" is clearly intended as a joke. JJL (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wait not only did he start at the UFC when he was 16, but he's a master of both CHUCK NORRIS and PIRATE style fighting arts!!! I'll go hoax as well.Horrorshowj (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 06:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel J. Abrams

Self-promotion by someone without any notability whatsoever. This guy is just a PhD candidate at Harvard without any significant publications. Even the book mentioned is not really his book as the main author is Morris P. Fiorina, and he was just a glorified research assistant. This article has been created by Samuel Abrams himself, a fact that has been widely discussed in the political science profession, as has his academic fraud where he misrepresented his academic credentials, claiming for example to be a professor at NYU, whereas in reality he still is a PhD candidate.}} Elliep (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not exactly for the reasons given by the respected nominator. This is kind of a "one fact" article. All a reader learns is that Mr. Abrams is an author of some articles, which he probably knew already or else why would he be looking for info on him in WP in the first place. There are no secondary sources that tell us anything more about Mr. Abrams or even comment on his works or opinions. If it is true that he was dishonest in promoting himself that's a bad thing to do, but not uncommon among writers and not a reason to delete his article. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Steve Dufour. I don't see how notability has been established. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete as well as per Steve Dufour's concerns. I raised my original concern due to the lack of sources and the apparent personal issues raised by the "Elliep" poster. That being said, the article should simply be removed due to the Dufour concerns. "Chill687" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chill687 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails our notability criteria. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Clearly non-notable. ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; plenty of gnews hits for Samuel J. Abrams, but almost none to this one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wouldn't it make sense to change the article so it's about a notable person (one with some of those gnews hits you mention) that has this name? Edward321 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A combination of a first and last name can get lots of ghits and still not involve a notable person. My name does. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - p.s. When he gets his PhD and a teaching job that will not make him a more notable author. That will only happen when other people start writing about him. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Mottley

Non-notable, possibly autobiography. Bothpath (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no verifiable assertions of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Potential WP:COI, notability not demonstrated to WP:BIO or WP:CORP. Additionally, there's a strong smell of WP:VSCA about the article. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a central article. Come to a separate consensus on the talkpages as to what the target should be, please Fritzpoll (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hand - a Bamboo Leaf (Zhou Ye Shou Gong)

Contested prod. Martial art with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Diamond Finger (Yi Zhi Jingang Fa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twin Lock (Shuang Suo Gong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Striking with Foot (Zhu She Gong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pulling out Nails (Bo Ding Gong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ringing Round a Tree (Bao Shu Gong)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Four Part Exercise (Si Duan Gong)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One Finger of Chan Meditiation (Yi Zhi Chan Gong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iron Head (Tie Tou Gong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Series of Blows (Pai Dai Gong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweeping with an Iron Broom (Tie Zhao Zhou Gong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hand - a Bamboo Leaf (Zhou Ye Shou Gong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jumping Centipede (Wu Gong Tiao) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Raising a Weight of 1000 Jins (Tie Qian Jin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Celestial's Plam (Xian Ren Zhang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to one article and will need cleaning up has a source. --Nate1481 14:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If merged, I suggest that the article in question be List of the 72 Arts of the Shaolin Temple. I should mention that one entry in that list is not listed here because it already has a detailled, adequate article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly merge The overall art seems notable, and they are sourced. I see no reason for deletion. If this is all there is to say about each of these things, they should probably be merged into one article. If there is more in depth to be reliably written about them they could possibly be kept separate. Locke9k (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the articles come from one source: Jin Jing Zhong - Training Methods Of 72 Arts Of Shaolin. Does anyone know/have this book? Bullshido does not explicitly trash it: always a good sign<g>. If it is a reliable source, Merge to one article 'Training Methods Of 72 Arts Of Shaolin'. jmcw (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of programs previously broadcast by ABS-CBN. Nakon 06:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balita Alas Singko ng Umaga

Non-notable television program. Only links currently provided are Youtube. Not much on G either: "Balita Alas Singko ng Umaga". Fails WP:V --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep for now~~. The morning news program on the Philippine's main TV network sounds like a notable subject. We just need sources (admittedly hard to find) to make sure this is as notable as it claims to be. I've flagged for rescue. yandman 12:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another way to spell it? Finding sources is difficult on this one. Ikip (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully these guys can help. yandman 15:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found your message at Tagalog Wikipedia, conveying/forwarding your message also at WP:Tambayan Philippines. - AnakngAraw (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a Tagalog article for this? If not, it might be best to focus on creating one there first, and building one in English after one has been created there. Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of programs previously broadcast by ABS-CBN and set a redirect. The article is apparently a copy of the one in WikiPilipinas. They seem to have less stringent inclusion criteria. There may be Philipino sources toward notability. Needs an expert. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of programs previously broadcast by ABS-CBN. No stand alone notability. JamesBurns (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Merge per MQSchmidt. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by ABS-CBN. This program is simply a recap of the headlines in yesterday's late night news programs (for the benefit of those who missed it) so I don't think 3rd parties were interested in giving reviews for it.--Lenticel ^(talk) 15:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! The way it was written, I was under the impression that it was the Philippino GMTV. Redirect. yandman 10:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - although I have seen some blogs etc. here. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, misspelling. Nakon 06:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mala (Plasticine)

When this article was new, I redirected it to Plasticine but the author protested that, under the name Mala, it has special cultural significance and that the article would be about that, so I let it go. Now I see that it says mala is a plasticine-like substance, which I'm guessing is to help justify having this article in addition to Plasticine despite WP:FORK; and despite the affirmation by the two references given that mala is plasticine.

Several weeks later, this article tells us nothing more than that Irish kids use plasticine, they have a local term for it, there's a derogatory term based on it, and one Irishman used it once. This article is in essence a freestanding trivia section. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is a brand, it might be ok, although it is very hard to see any web refs at all (no, not Male model...). Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~Merge per Alison I can't even find one WP:RS for this term. ww2censor (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Plasticine. I can't see any harm in the Plasticine article stating that it is called Mala in Ireland. Snappy (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: but there are no reliable source that even confirm it is called that is Ireland. Perhpas someone on the ga can help. ww2censor (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, I used it as a child! Ok, I'm not a reliable source but it's true! Snappy (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see any justification for noting in an arbitrary article the word for the article's topic in an arbitrary language, or any context in which it would make sense to mention it. Would people then go randomly mentioning the Greek word for "paint" in the Paint article or the Pashto word for "clay" in the Clay article? —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in an arbitrary language. It is an Irish word used in the English language in Ireland. Your mentioning of Greek is irrelevant because they are speaking Greek and using the Greek word for plasticine. In this case, people speaking English are using the Irish word for an object instead of the readily available English one. It's similar to having multiple words in English for one object in different areas, like Petrol/Gasoline or Crisps/Chips/Taytos etc. Snappy (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Irish any less arbitrarily chosen than any other language? I'm not seeing your point, specially given that we also don't have separate articles, nor should we, for petrol and gasoline or for crisps and chips. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point I am trying to make is that among people in Ireland who speak the English language as their first (and mostly only) language, use a word (Márla) from the Irish language who referring to the object known else where in the English speaking world as plasticine. They could use the word plasticine, they know of its existence but they don't use it. Hence, I don't think it much of a stretch to have one short sentence in the plasticine article saying: "Plasticine is known as Márla in Ireland.". See Sidewalk as an example of the same thing being known by different names in different countries, except in this case they are all in English. Snappy (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's a misspelling. The word you are actually looking for is "Márla" - see here, and here for more info. I recommend just creating a redir to Plasticine from Márla and adding a brief, one-line entry in the main article - Alison ^❤ 04:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC) (back for a min because I was asked to comment here via gawiki)[reply]

Yes, you're right! Only realised it now. Brings back lots of childhood memories! Snappy (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed!! "Múinteoir - Seán is eating the yellow márla again!!". And of course, mála and mala mean completely different things :) - Alison ^❤ 07:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely went with Mála, without the "r", in my part of the world. Ah, we knew the simple pleasures of life then, we didn't need high tech gadgets then: we played with our mála and then off to watch Lolek and Bolek. Oh, and that's a Merge here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, Márla comes from the same word used to describe the sticky clay subsoil found in parts of Ireland. The English translation is marl.Sean an Scuab (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge if it is not a brand name, just the Irish word. Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion - Redirect to the correct word/per Alison (talk · contribs)...Modernist (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aljmir Murati

Non-notable footballer, never played fully-pro league Matthew_hk t c 11:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is a debate about whether or not the league this player has played in is fully-pro, and therefore meets WP:ATHLETE, is located at a related AfD. Regards, Giant Snowman 16:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to WP:FOOTY here the league seems to be only semi-professional. Stu.W UK (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per evidence found by Stu.W UK; this player fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Swiss Challenge League is not fully professional, so the subject is not notable. --Angelo (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Schwarzenberger

Non-notable footballer, never played in fully-pro league, ie. Swiss Super League Matthew_hk t c 11:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question is the Swiss Challenge League not fully professional? If not then there are plenty of other players from this team who should also be nominated Stu.W UK (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Combining the fact that FC Vaduz, who are Liechtenstein's only pro team, have spent the majority of their existence in this league along with a quick look at the other teams in this league and I would say it IS fully-pro. However, finding evidence either way is tricky...Giant Snowman 16:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to WP:FOOTY here the league seems to be only semi-professional. Stu.W UK (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per evidence found by Stu.W UK; this player fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as far as I know, Swiss Challenge League is not fully professional, so the subject is not notable. --Angelo (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Arkansas Razorbacks football team

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is just a list of season results of a college football team. Magioladitis (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is jock-oriented to the extreme, but this actually falls under WP:NOT#STATS ("articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader"). There's no context here, and the nominator is correct that this is nothing more than a recital of game results. And it's an unnecessary and most unreadable table; nobody should have to scroll down to read eleven football scores. If someone wants to rescue it, then "Soooooeeeeeee!!!". I don't like the Hawgs, so it won't be I, but it wouldn't take much. Mandsford (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If stats need explanatory text, then why are we talking deletion before asking the primary editor or a suitable WikiProject to provide such details. _ Mgm|^(talk) 08:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's Arkansas! But seriously, it's been up since December with no indication that it was intended to be more than this. Wikipedia sets a lower threshold for sports and entertainment articles, to be sure, but that's no excuse for a lack of content. The article's creator has been notified of the nomination [41] and perhaps there's a Razorbacks fan who considers the '05 season worth an article. I think that most of them would prefer to forget that 4-7-0 season. Mandsford (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete usually a season article of a major Division-1 team is ok, but nothing salvageable here, even for a merge (which I prefer). Fails WP:NOT#STATS. Secret ^account 13:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not an article. The University should use its own webspace to keep a record of its stats. The same goes for all other teams, TV shows, and other such lists of data. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There really is no reason to have a separate article for every season of a team to me. If the season is very notable (i.e. broke records, etc.) then we should keep it, otherwise it's not very smart to make it into a separate article. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vinnie langdon

The article claims that the subject is a well-known TV host and producer, but I am unable to find any independent confirmation. Does not meet WP:BIO and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the article is obviously nonsense, and the previous version was copyvio from the subject's website. The subject appears to host a TV show on "public access television" - I'm not very clued up on TV in the USA but as far as I can tell this means that his show is only broadcast to one small town, and all the third-party coverage it's received appears to be strictly confined to the local media of said town and/or its immediate surrounding area. I'd say this doesn't meet requirements. Delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just took a look at this [clip]. Some of the articles flashed on the screen *might* be decent but I can't really make them out. I'd like to hear from the author; perhaps he or she can readily fish up some of these articles. Hazir (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't view the YouTube clip at work, but a sample of Mr Langdon's press cuttings can be found here..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete thanks for the link. As others have stated, predominantly local interest. Good luck to the kid though, seems he has a ton of potential. Hazir (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local interest only. No evidence of notability. Probably self-promotion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Up and coming young man who appears to be the Wayne Campbell of Vacaville, California. Not enough for his own article, however. Mandsford (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No delete opinions have been given, nom. withdrawn. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Chariot

No assertion of notability Papa November (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is about a tourist train in India. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being a Palace on Wheels tourist train is an assertion of notability. Is the subject of independent reliable sources like The Times of India [42] and The Hindu [43]. The coverage is very substantial. --Oakshade (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - great references, thanks. If they can be worked into the text, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Papa November (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just add the references. The train sounds really cool. I'd like to go sometime. BTW Palace on Wheels needs the same help. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Turning them into inline references is useful if you want to immediately turn it into an article of GA or FA status. Other than that, having simple references (not inline) is enough to establish notability even if they don't verify every single detail in the article. There's no need to require more than is strictly neccesary to avoid deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue is that the article doesn't contain those references at all! Papa November (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded and referenced the article (including the above two sources). Notability should not be an issue now. Abecedare (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting article, now well referenced, notable train and route. Just the type of article that makes Wikipedia such a fantastic resource. Priyanath ^talk 03:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My concerns about notability have now been addressed. Great work! Feel free to close the discussion :) Papa November (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted under WP:CSD#G12 as the plot section (the majority of the article) is a copyright violation of [44], and/or under WP:CSD#G4 as recreation of material deleted via deletion discussion without addressing the reason for deletion. Previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IL Fantasma Ieri. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Il fantasma ieri

The plot is one big copyright violation for which the article has already been deleted once, but I'm fairly certain this was already discussed at AFD before under some other spelling and should be deleted under CSD G4 (recreation of deleted content), but I can't dig up the relevant debate - only a G12 speedy. The article has no reliable sources and none are available to add. Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - It was G12d under the name Il Fantasma Ieri. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note2 - It was AfD'd under the name IL Fantasma Ieri - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IL Fantasma Ieri. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nakon 05:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Warshawski

Non-notable, unsourced, in-universe, plot summary; tagged over a year ago for clean-up [45] and no resolution of concerns. Jack Merridew 08:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious merge into List of Honorverse characters, which was created for this type of small articles. Debresser (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge proposed and ready to carry out. Debresser (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion especially:
You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of GFDL). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy. This is not an issue, however, if the merged content is not merely copied and pasted, but instead completely rewritten so that only uncopyrightable facts are transferred, not copyrightable expression.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant content to List of Honorverse characters, as standard practice for non-notable characters in notable works would suggest. JulesH (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to merge in here. The character can be described with one line, something that is already done in the list. In fact the list has more than 100 characters and in order not to rewrite the plot of the books I think some small descriptions are ok and welcome. Some bigger descriptions can be done for main characters. Full descriptions won't help, since the main elements of the plot are already in the books. Moreover, we don't need a reedirect for every single character of every book. It's like creating a redirect for every single footballer. I think deletion is the best option for this one and some more of the same. Better invest some time to improve the list itself than havving all these articles around. --Magioladitis (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-notable content fork on the relevant plot summaries. Don't merge anything. One great big pile of unsourced fictional trivia is not better than a bunch of smaller piles. They can take it all to the Honorverse wiki if it's not already there.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- she isn't a character, she's backstory. Could be dealt with in one line at a "tech of Honorverse" article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge the appropriate amount. As Jules correctly says, if they're not important enough as separate characters in background, combination articles preserving content are the way to go. Saying background characters are not fit content even merged is against the principle of having a comprehensive encyclopedia. Being able to cover the backstory is something very appropriate for a reference work like this. I cannot tell if this string of nominations against characters and character groups in this fiction is a statement that the fiction as a whole in not important enough for detailed coverage (about which I have no real opinion), or whether no fiction at all should get detailed coverage. If the latter, its the attempt of a small group to wear down the opposition based on the stated view of the nominator that popular culture is not worth substantial coverage. DGG (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see my comment to a similar post of yours on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Komandorski. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as I said there, if you want to delete not merge you are losing content which can be reliably sourced to the primary source, which is just what;s appropriate for this; and the individual paragraphs of content in a combined article dont have to be notable, or we'd have a wp article for every paragraph here. We do better to keep them together in reasonable combined articles. I reallhy don;t know why you find this a strange concept. DGG (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the comments offered above, especially those of Magioladitis which I agree with. Eusebeus (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to do the Pokémon test and see if this is worth keeping. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List_of_Honorverse_characters#Walker_to_Waters. --EEMIV (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to Keep. Nakon 05:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Theisman

Non-notable, unsourced, in-universe, plot summary; tagged over a year ago for clean-up [46] and no resolution of concerns. Jack Merridew 08:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major character in a particularly notable series of fictional works, important enough to be the first character mentioned on the book blurbs for at least one of the novels [47]. Regularly discussed in reviews of the books (e.g. [48] [49] [50]). Discussed by the author in this interview. Plenty of source material to expand beyond an in-universe plot summary. JulesH (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely unsourced and unsourceable fan-type essay. The fictional characters "importance" to this or that novel should be reflected in those novels' plot summaries.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How many books or other sources was the character found in? If more than one, and there is enough information to justify an article on its own, then I say it is clearly notable enough to have the right to exist. Listing each book the character was found in, in the reference section, should be done though. Dream Focus 17:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I read the books, but IIRC he appeared in 4-5 of them, and was probably the second most important character in one of those. JulesH (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Clearly a major character Major characters in major fiction should get articles. I cannot tell if this string of nominations against characters and character groups in this fiction is a statement that the fiction as a whole in not important enough for detailed coverage (about which I have no real opinion), or whether no fiction at all should get detailed coverage. If the latter, its the attempt of a very small group to wear down the opposition by working on individual fictions not all that many people here care about individually, and where they can often get a majority bit by bit against what they have proven unable to get in principle. This is based on the stated view of the nominator that popular culture is not worth substantial coverage. Considering that such is one of the glories of Wikipedia, I find that odd. DGG (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see my comment to a similar post of yours on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Komandorski. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as in-universe, unnotable, WP:NOT#PLOT-violating fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JulesH. Edward321 (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selective blurb merge and redirect to List_of_Honorverse_characters#Tennard.2C_J_to_Theodore. --EEMIV (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whittlesea United

An unsourced article on a non-notable football club that does not compete at a fully professsional level nor at the highest level in the nation, Mattinbgn\^talk 08:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I think that this might also fall under CSD C7. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was a contested PROD, see this for rationale for contesting. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Matt. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 08:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too far down the tiers. A very quick search shows no significant coverage. Camw (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The league they play in is essentially the 6th tier level in Australian football, behind A-league, Victorian Premier League and three State league divisions. Purely suburban amateur stuff - I should know, I played that level myself - and I'm certainly non-notable! Murtoa (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a shame that the culture is not yet strong enough behind the game that a 6th tier Australian team cannot be notable, when the existence of English teams (look at Kintbury Rangers F.C. for example), many tiers down, remain unquestioned. Look at Ringwood City - a team once competing in the top Vic league that's all the way down the bottom -- I know people will accuse me of making the "Other Stuff Exists" argument but teams can go up the tiers too so I don't think which tier the team plays in should come into the argument. So it goes. Australian Matt (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not just that they play in the 6th tier now, as far as I can see that is the highest they have ever been. If at some stage Whittlesea had been at the second (might have even been the equal highest tier in those days) tier like Ringwood then that would make a difference. If Whittlesea start moving up the tiers and start getting significant coverage in reliable sources, then their claim to notability will be much stronger. Camw (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ringwood City (and formerly as Ringwood Wilhelmina and Wilhelmina) has had a long and significant history (in Australian football terms), with its genesis as a Dutch-based club in the 1950s at a time of burgeoning popularity of the game and played for many years at the highest level of the game in Australia, there being no national league in those days. Its notability remains intact irrespective of current position. Whittlesea on the other hand has been in existence for 14 seasons, most at the 7th or 8th tier of Australian football. No comparison in my view. Murtoa (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comment was rebuttal to the "too far down the tiers" and "essentially the 6th tier" arguments as reasons for deletion rather than comparing notability. Notability is important so I'm at least happy that if/when the club is notable, it will merit inclusion. Australian Matt (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The argument was not just that they were "too far down the tiers" it was that coupled with "no significant coverage". Camw (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Giant Snowman 17:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GROUP and, by implication, WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability whatsoever. --Angelo (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 05:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Komandorski

Non-notable, unsourced, in-universe, plot summary; tagged over a year ago for clean-up [51] and no resolution of concerns. Jack Merridew 08:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Jack Merridew 08:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Jack Merridew 08:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Honorverse characters: I ran the three synonyms through Google Scholar and Books in search of notability. The first has no hits, the second gives a link only to one of the novels in which she appears, the third returns hits for a different character in a novel by another author. A broader web search for the main name, minus overt Wikipedia mirror sites, also returns nothing in the way of reliable sources. Therefore notability is not established and an independent article not merited. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and then discuss whether or not to merge at the appropriate talk page. I'd support the merge, almost certainly, at the right place. As Jules correctly says, if they're not important enough as separate characters, combination articles preserving content are the way to go. The only real problem is that the combination articles may then be deleted — as is currently being attempted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treecat, and then the articles about the characters as a group, and all reduced to bare lists of names. I cannot tell if this string of nominations against characters and character groups in this fiction is a statement that the fiction as a whole in not important enough for detailed coverage (about which I have no real opinion), or whether no fiction at all should get detailed coverage. If the latter, its the attempt of a small group to wear down the opposition based on the stated view of the nominator that popular culture is not worth substantial coverage. DGG (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I reviewed many of the Honorverse articles a year ago and my attention was drawn back to these when someone took one of them to AfD earlier this week; it's likely whichever one I first commented on recently (I have a huge watchlist;). I certainly do feel that detailed coverage of some fictional characters is warranted — the ones other parties believe worth covering, not all of the ones wiki editors believe should be covered. That's the core idea of the concept of requiring reasonably detailed coverage by independent reliable sources to warrant the inclusion of an article. In the cases where pretty much no coverage exists, a mention in a list with about one sentence is all that seems appropriate; i.e. a merge is not appropriate either. When Wikipedia gets ahead of the independent reliable sources on coverage, we're implicitly serving to promote the material, which in this case, and others, is a commercial franchise.
As to the fact that a few potential merge targets are also at AfD; I believe it's a coincidence. I made 5 noms yesterday, all characters. There are dozens of leaf-node articles in this garden and others see this, too. Once editors see a few up, there is a natural tendency for them to recall other articles that they have concerns about and that will typically lead to organic growth of the range up for discussion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)][reply]
1/ How can the nomination of combination articles be inadvertent, if you are examining the articles? The reason for nominating them can only be because you think not even merged content acceptable.

2/ I consider the importance of the character and the importance of the fiction at least equal considerations, because otherwise we're bound to the chance accumulation of easily findable references — or are you asserting you did a proper search, per WP:BEFORE? But even for those who accept that secondary sourcing is the main consideration, that does not apply to merged sections, which are suitable for sub-notable but relevant content. You argue otherwise, but I do not know on what basis. it has been continually rejected that individual parts of content in an article must be notable.

3/ I asked about the specificity to see if you thought similarly about other material, because deletion based on the grounds that this particular fiction is not sufficiently important requires a different rationale in discussing — and for fictional genres I have little familiarity with, I fell less competent to do that, as compared to discussing fiction in general, which both you and I are essentially trying to do.
4/ any article on any current fiction or other book, any commercial product, any college, any author or painter or musician, can have the effect of promotion. The prevention of an excessive influence of this is proper editing. Even discussion of non-plot elements such as sales and awards can have just the same effect, perhaps even more so than plot and characters. DGG (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the fact that I had seen some Hoververse articles up, had then nominated 5 that I had previously looked at a year ago, and that I then saw that yet more had been nominated by others. I'm not going to nom any more until these discussions have run their course and I take another look-see. I did review a bunch more yesterday, and tidied and tagged things. There are something like 50 character articles and maybe 50 others about planets, navies and spaceships. The List of Honorverse characters is already over 200kb with some huge number of characters in it. There's simply far too much coverage here. I've never read any of these books, and don't care to. I read a lot of such fiction, back in the day. I can't tell which of these articles are genuinely notable. If you, or anyone, comes up with a solid sort of source on any of them, great; I'll change my !vote. Promise.

I did do the usual Google searches on these first; pretty much across the board I found the primary sources or some real individual with the name. There are copies of the articles out there; there's Wikia and other such fansites. I even visited the Honorverse wiki (the blue skin hurt my eyes, and the top-level domain is a deterrent for me;). I don't see Weber's work as particularly important to anyone. The books sell, people get checks, there are reviews on the books (right?) and the girl must have gotten some notice. The sprawling level of detail, original research, synthesis and whatnot in here is ridiculous. I don't feel comfortable performing merges of content I'm unfamiliar with; those who are familiar with it will invariably disagree with my cuts. Besides, the ice is rather thin in that area. Merge proposals on talk pages are exercises in futility; there's no closure. The results are invariably disputed, the redirects often undone. I'd be all for a more formalized Articles for Merging system.

I do believe that this 'verse is a particularly egregious example of a pervasive problem with a lot of our pop-culture coverage. Wikipedia is not a fansite; this degree of coverage is obsessive, not encyclopædic. My view of notability as an inclusion criteria is as a gatekeeper for this sort of stuff. As much as some want to cover everything in near infinite detail, we can't, and we shouldn't. There is an inexact alignment of my personal views on what's important and what has been genuinely been taken note of by the independent reliable source crowd. Professional athletes, for example, are surely well taken note of; there's no pissing in that wind; and I wouldn't — they met the bar. As to whether said sources are actually cited — I wouldn't know; I've not looked.

Wikipedia coverage of most any commercial property is incredibly valuable to those behind it, sure. This is well enough understood, but for the most part folks focus on the obvious spammers; the SPAs that link-spam. Every major marketing department, advertising agency, and Search Engine Optimization consultant is well-aware of the effects of Wikipedia on their fortunes. We should fully expect to see ever more aggressive attempts by those interests to influence coverage of their bread and butter on our projects. We should also expect them to seek to satisfy our inclusion guidelines where they can by, for example, putting up quasi-independent reviews et al on the web where the ghit crowd will easily find them. Marketing is relentless and pernicious.

I've said elsewhere that this is not really about fiction; it's about entertainment. While here we are in fact talking about a block of fictional books, the core of this is ephemeral pop-culture — that doesn't honestly meet our inclusion criteria. I strongly support having comprehensive coverage of the truly notable works of fiction. Tolkien, Tolstoy, Austen an Asimov to name a few. Such works will meet even a very high standard of notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as we say, and we do discriminate against certain content and one of the determinants is true notability as defined by others, not ourselves. Weber is no Asimov and Elaine Komandorski is no Lady Macbeth.

Others; sorry to clot up this page with all this; we'll take it somewhere else, soon enough.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: DGG, I understand what you're saying, but I'd be reluctant to try to head off AfDs against the combination lists by giving their potential constituent articles immunity from deletion. Would we lose much by having the merge discussion here, rather than closing the AfD and then rehashing the discussion on the talk page? (This is a sincere question; I'm not super-familiar with process so I don't know if there are drawbacks to doing it this way). Gonzonoir (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But people are trying explicitly to suppress merged articles. In that environment, experience unfortunately shows that a strong defense of the content here is advisable to help a proper merge into a section, and discourages a submerge into a list item — as the nom in fact suggests doing. It's unfortunately not just a matter of process. DGG (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not explicitly; that potential merge targets are also up is a mere happenstance of the wiki-process. The treecats and list of, right? I didn't nominate those. My one sentence comment above does not imply a merge to me. There has been quite a flurry of merge proposals; this is not about moving the bits around, it's about too much fancruft. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough information to justify its own side article. You couldn't possible merge that much information, and the List of Honorverse characters doesn't have summaries for the characters listed there, just their names, ranks, and whatnot. So you can't merge it, that ending up in this case being exactly the same as a delete(except the history of the article is preserved, and there is a redirect added. Dream Focus 17:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fictional character with insufficient independent coverage to sufficiently establish notability outside of the context of the work of fiction the character inhabits.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I wholeheartedly endorse Gonzonoir's analysis of the sources. Reyk _YO! 22:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely in-universe content that violates our content provisions elaborated at WP:NOT. Eusebeus (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Honorverse characters Edward321 (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without merge, and redirect to List_of_Honorverse_characters#Kleinmeuller_to_Kuzak. Entry there appears to cover essential bases. --EEMIV (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 05:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Life D-D-Doth

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/What Life D-D-Doth

This article fails the Notability Test. Its one "source" is IMDB, which don't count because it allows anyone to edit it. The question isn't if this will be deleted, but when. TBone777 (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1) The nominator gives no indication whether and how they applied WP:BEFORE. 2) IMDB only allows submissions by users. They have an editorial department that checks these, but the problem is they're often wrong. 3) The final comment sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please expand the nomination with valid reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Xavier: Renegade Angel episodes. This episode is definitely not notable, just like all the rest which have already been deleted or redirected. I get no hits from either google news or NewsBank. The series itself is barely notable. Sarilox (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just like the rest of the episode pages that ended up being deleted, this is an overly-long, badly-sourced summary of a non-notable episode. Graymornings_(talk) 22:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 05:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Georgia relations

another non-notable relationship. according to this http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?sec_id=262&lang_id=ENG Australia imported less than USD2million to Georgia while Georgia exported less than $50,000! there are individuals who do more trade than this! LibStar (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Diplomatic relations between nations are much wider than just trade. Low levels of trade is not a reason to delete. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how about this, there are only 385 Georgians living in Australia according to this. there is no trade agreement and no other bilateral agreement I can find, neither leader nor foreign minister has visited either country, hardly notable. LibStar (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Artificially generated placeholder which would be a useful addition to this encyclopedia if there was more than a shred of worthwhile content - but I can't find any. Murtoa (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Murtoa's description is right on-- an artificially-generated placeholder. It's noteworthy that even the websites of the Australian and Georgian foreign ministries have nothing to say about each other. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as random, non-notable pairing. Australia's reaction to the Georgia-Russia war already noted at International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I can really add nothing to what the above delete arguments say. Reyk _YO! 22:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete others have said it better than i could at this point.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More non-notable Australia–Foobar relations. WWGB (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mattinbgn. Ikip (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, request this AfD be suspended until consensus on consistent guidelines on notability is achieved at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Martintg (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Honorverse characters. Nakon 05:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Zilwicki

Non-notable, unsourced, in-universe, plot summary; tagged over a year ago for clean-up [52] and no resolution of concerns. Jack Merridew 07:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 07:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 07:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant content to List of Honorverse characters, as standard practice for non-notable characters in notable works would suggest. JulesH (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- more rubbish from the big huge walled garden of Honorcruft. This article has no sources beyond, presumably, the books themselves so fails WP:N, and this character seems to be an exceedingly minor one. There is no call for a stand-alone article on this guy, and he's already mentioned in sufficient detail at the List of Honorverse characters. Reyk _YO! 22:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent reliable sources establish notability of any sort for this character independent from the work of fiction it inhabits.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list of characters, as one of the central characters in a series of novels (Wages of Sin). 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. No assertion of real-world notability. Eusebeus (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge Minor characters are not worth whole articles except in the very most important fictions, and this is not really one. Primary sources do fine for such content, and in fact are preferred for straightforward things related to plot. DGG (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question How many books or other media was this character featured in, and to what extent? Dream Focus 04:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer no reliable independent sources address that issue, the crux of the problem here. We'd have to trust an obsessive fan to read all of the books and ancillary material, and make lists, and then take his word for it. And why? So we can categorize something that has no demonstrated (via reliable independent sources) notability in the Reality-verse.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Honorverse characters Edward321 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List_of_Honorverse_characters#Zilwicki_to_Zrubek. --EEMIV (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 05:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–Iceland relations

another country pairing of questionable notability. Only connection is being part of the same continent. LibStar (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- And even that connection is weak, since Iceland isn't part of continental Europe. It's hard to imagine much common ground between landlocked Hungary and the North Atlantic island of Ísland. Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assume good faith for the editors. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Editors LibStar, Mr. Accountable, BlueSquadron and Biruitorul are all acting in good faith! Mandsford (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Plumoyr? MyDog22 (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not Plumoyr. But Plumoyr isn't a participant in this discussion, and I have no obligation to assume good faith outside of this discussion. Mandsford (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-resident ambassadors means non-notable relations. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources found to indicate any sort of notability to the relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Iceland and Foreign relations of Hungary and delete. MyDog22 (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, request this AfD be suspended until consensus on consistent guidelines on notability is achieved at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Martintg (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium–Georgia relations

no real evidence provided of a notable relationship. could easily be covered in Foreign relations of Belgium and Foreign relations of Georgia. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the embassy website that's listed as a source speaks only in term of Georgia's relationship with the European Union in general; nothing to indicate any particular bilateral relations between Georgia and Belgium. Not surprisingly, Belgium has not acted separately from the other NATO countries when it comes to its response to Georgia's problems with Russia. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, none likely. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence whatsoever of a notable relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW again. feydey (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"

AfDs for this article:

It really pains me that such a horribly non-encyclopedic list has managed to last so-ooo long on Wikipedia. Without stepping foot into the territory of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or rather, OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXISTTHANKGOD) this list is too arbitrary in nature and the "fuck count" really boggles. Hopefully the ninth time is the charm here. JBsupreme (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep too arbitrary - no, this has a clear inclusion crieteria. It's no less arbitrary than several of the featured lists on WP. Everything is referenced and your comment "Hopefully the ninth time is the charm here" just smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lugnuts (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The word, the minimum number of uses of the word (and the choice of an absolute value rather than a frequency), the exclusion of certain films - all are arbitrarily chosen. The article is nothing but a list of statistics. The references are all (in the cases I checked) either dead links or to archives of a single, now defunct, site which does not appear to be reliable. I like the idea that such an article exists but there seems to be nothing in WP policy to support its inclusion. I42 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (And Keep. But mostly comment.) Seriously? Again? This feels like it's become "keep throwing it against the wall 'til it sticks" thing at this point. I can't say anything here that hasn't been said before. The dead horse is pulp. Stop beating it. LaMenta3 (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I used these arguments also at previous AfDs, but I guess I am allowed to do that like other people are allowed to nominate this article yet again for AfD. Also, I acknowledge that I am biased, as I've edited the article a lot, and yes its amusing (and there is nothing wrong with that). But more importantly:
- The word fuck is different from random other words (including other swearing and sexual slang), given the controversy that surrounds it. Excessive usage of the word fuck in specific movies is often mentioned in reviews/reports, showing the notability of the subject. For example, there is a movie dedicated to the usage of the word fuck, as well as many scientific articles.
- A clearly defined cut-off (100 in this case) narrows the scope of the article, making it easier to maintain and sets it apart from what are often called "indiscriminate lists". As also mentioned before, many lists naming the top XXXX of something on Wikipedia use an arbitrary cut-off. This is not original research, but only a way to keep the maintenance and size of such articles under control, something that is done all over Wikipedia, see for a few examples these featured lists: List of tallest buildings in Baltimore, List of longest suspension bridge spans, List of wealthiest charitable foundations, etc...
- The main argument in several previous AfDs was sourcing. It is properly sourced now for a long time, making all information verifiable. Some of the numbers might be estimates, but that fact could easily be added to the introduction of the list. It is true that quite a few links point to an archived site (at the Internet Archive), since that site is no longer active, but the information is still available for anyone to see.
- Articles likes this are exactly what makes Wikipedia different from other encyclopedias.
- We have lists like this, with similar sourcing, all over Wikipedia. I am not gonna give overwhelming evidence, just one totally random example that I could think of. See the article List of largest suspension bridges, with the bridge at position 10 in the list. This: [53] is the supplied reference. Not exactly a reference that discusses how this bridge is well known for its length. It just shows some details and, indeed, the length of the bridge. Is that article ever nominated for deletion? Not once. In fact, it is a Featured list.
- So in summary, the article does NOT violate WP:A, WP:OR, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:LIST, WP:CLS or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Therefore, I do not see any grounds for deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: any list of "...est" has to have a cutoff, be it highest mountains, top-scoring sportspeople or uses of the most high-profile profanity in the English language. 100 is a round number which keeps the list to a manageable size. This topic seems reasonably encyclopedic, and potentially useful for research: "Which films has the word been used in?... any pattern of changes over time? ... are they made in US/UK/elsewhere? (have to follow through to the articles, for that one, as it strangely isn't included in the table, but at least it's a start)". PamD (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the comments already made, I'd also like to add that this isn't just some random statistic. A "fuck" limit is in use by organizations like the MPAA who rate films and films that use such words too often affect their rating with it. [54] - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a well-referenced encyclopaedic article, and per all the millions of other reasons listed through the years during these AfDs. No valid deletion criteria has been provided, or I have missed it. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No evidence has been presented that consensus has changed in the last 6 months. Plenty of good arguments to keep presented in the last AFD, very few arguments to delete. Suspicion that WP:IDONTLIKEIT comes into play here is hard to ignore. JulesH (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article meets WP:RS standards, and I would think the value of the subject was already confirmed in the last nine RfAs. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How does anyone have the time to count the number of times a word is used in a movie? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As others have noted, this list is well-sourced (copious references to reliable sources), and there are no WP:V, WP:RS, [[WP:OR], [WP:SYN]] or other issues; it is also well-presented and well-organised. Overall, it's a fine bit of work.
The nominator's complaint about it being unencyclopedic is addressed in the introduction to the list, which establishes the notability and significance of the use of the word "fuck" as one of the most taboo words in American film. A list like this tracking the use of a non-taboo word such as "haddock" or "collander" would indeed be trivia, but that's not the case here. Far from being some sort of extraneous trivia, this list seems to me to be a very good example of the sort of thing that a non-paper encyclopedia can do well: a summary of an issue which may be irrelevant to many people, but which has been the subject of heated controversy in popular culture for decades. Kittybrewster rightly asks who would have the time to count all the uses of these words, and I think that's an important point: the significance of this word, and the relevance of the list, is precisely that so much attention is paid to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Friend, thou art great in faith and I do not wish to discourage thee, but smiting a stone Walle with thine Heade hath left no crack upon said Structure, and there hath been nine other Friends who tried before thee. Friend Mandsford (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest early close. No real argument for deleting this list is given; it may be disliked by some, but this frankly does not justify repetitious attempts to delete it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy fucking keep. The notability of this fucking topic is well established, and the majority of the fucking sources are perfectly fucking valid. Those fucking sources also show that the fucking topic is not fucking arbitrary. Fuck, how many fucking times do we have to have this fucking discussion? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WTF is notable about this list? It seems to only be kept for the novelty of it. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wish someone would take this to FL. That might not stop the AfDs, but at least it might slow them down. See my arguments from previous AfDs, I'm to tired to restate them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list is completely arbitrary. It doesn't mention a single X-rated porn film, for a start. Why not? Because if it did, the Top 10 would look very different indeed (and it would then also be virtually impossible to keep the list up-to-date and accurate). So, from an encyclopedic point of view, it's very incomplete and it will never be complete. That's bad. Personally I also completely fail to see the point of this list, but that's another story. Have we got a List of films that most frequently use the word "cunt" yet? Yintaɳ 17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with an injunction against further AfDs on this article; if someone wants to bring it here a tenth time, I think they should need to take it to DRV first.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - Just for my information: What/where is "DRV"? Yintaɳ 17:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wikipedia:Deletion_Review. My reasoning is that this nomination is the clearest, most blatant case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED that I've ever seen in my life; it's a kind of forum-shopping, where an editor or group of editors keep on re-nominating the same article again and again til they get the result they want in an attempt to circumvent consensus.

DRV's role is to examine whether there was anything wrong with a previous discussion at AfD, with the presumption that if nothing was wrong, the previous result should stand.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you. Yintaɳ 17:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the basis that we are also reminded to IGNOREALLRULES, I suggest that this article is an attempt to link an assortment of films in the style of a dissetation rather than a credible entry. Yes the word "fuck" is taboo, but so are many other 4-letter words; I can't help thinking that allowing this list opens up the door for copy-cat articles with even less value. doktorb _words^deeds 21:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Tech Cable Network

Fails Notable criteria and WP:NOT#DIR...plus we are not a TV Guide. NeutralHomer • Talk • April 16, 2009 @ 06:32 06:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and a Comment. If the channel list is really a big problem, it can easily be removed. As to the notability, I am of the opinion that GTCN falls into the same approximate notability as, say, WREK, the campus radio station. I am pretty sure that GTCN has one of the largest channel lineups of college cable networks in the United States. However, I am at a conference this weekend and will not have time to thoroughly research GTCN's notability for several days. Any in-depth work on that by someone else would be appreciated. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Even if it has the "largest channel lineup" it still only serves a campus of a college, maybe a mile or two, if that. Also, it wouldn't fall under the same notabilty as radio station WREK, as the notability for radio stations is a FCC license. If I am not mistaken, cable companies stopped being licensed back in the 90s by the FCC. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 16, 2009 @ 06:47
  - Well of course cable networks are not radio stations, and they have different standards; I was going for a metaphor here. But purely in terms of audience, they both serve a relatively large number of people. Not as many as, say, Comcast, but they do have their claims to notability. For example, they carry a statistically significant number of international channels. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I don't know if this is important or not, but this source: Johnson, Brent (2000-10-20). "Tuning Tech TV on GTCN". The Technique. Retrieved 2004-04-16. states: [GTCN-created program] "Phat Video has been awarded third place in Overall Music Oriented Programming by the National Association of College Broadcasting" —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from what Disavian has mentioned, I have also found that GTCN has won a number of Telly Awards for its original programming (as, in addition to being a campus cable provider it also has a handful of "local access"-type channels that it manages its own programming for). A list of the awards won in 2008 are here. I haven't searched for previous years. Additionally, I have also found an article that talks a bit about the history and operation of the network, which can be accessed here. I post these here so that either I or someone else may access them later to use them to improve the article. I may or may not get around to it myself, as I have only been able to edit sporadically in recent months. LaMenta3 (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Important or not, remove the lineup. Nobody cares that Tech students watch SpikeTV on channel 43. Mandsford (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment GTCN is notable in that it is a full broadcasting system, albeit available only to the Georgia Tech Community, but this does not negate its importance to people who are researching or are interested in such systems or amenities that the school provides. I suggest that the article be kept. Centrisian (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 05:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pings Xiao and Hsiao P'ing-shih

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

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

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

Pings Xiao is an over-long article about a controversial Chinese Buddhist. The page about him on the Chinese Wikipedia is currently fully protected due to edit wars / vandalism apparently. The problem is an absence of information in English. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Clay Collier (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks to be notable but lacks sources. Should be tagged, and editors given the chance to source and tidy up. Being overtly long is not a reason for deletion, just judicious editing. (I'd tag it myself, but can never find them...) --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete: The biggest problem right now is that there is no clear assertion of notability in the article, and no English-language sources that can be used to assess the importance of the person being described. It's possible that he's somewhat influential abroad, but it's really not possible to quickly assess. Compared to someone like Hsing Yun, he doesn't have much of a presence in English-language sources, and neither do the groups that he is supposed to have started, though there is some question about the transliteration of his name- the article Hsiao P'ing-shih appears to be about the same person, and there's at least one other alternate translit (Xiaopeng Shi variants). The current article is a mess, and appears to be as concerned with defending his views on the Tathagatagarbha as anything else, including a lot of OR, misuse of sources, etc. If the article is kept, it really needs to be cut down to a stub and restructured. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My 'delete' is no longer weak. I was holding out hope that Chinese-language sources could be found, but I feel after reading cab's remarks and seeing the SPA wikilove we've attracted that a verifiable, neutral article isn't possible at this time. Comparison to other foreign religious leaders (I mentioned a couple below, but Tep Vong and Bour Kry also came to mind) also leads me to believe his profile in the media isn't comparable with that of other notable figures outside of the English-speaking world. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes Hsiao P'ing-shih points to the same article on the zh: Wikipedia so I am sure it is the same person. I was very tempted to close this discussion by redirecting Pings Xiao to Hsiao P'ing-shih since the latter article seems to be an appropriate length for the notability of this person in English language sources! Clearly, if the decision here is to keep, then the articles must be merged. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete precisely one GNews archive hit in Chinese: [55] which is not primarily about him. The Google hits in Chinese are numerous but appear to be nothing but a sea of blogs, forums, video sites, booksellers, and other similar internet flotsam. The only reliable source I can find about him at all is a single news article [56] in a Taiwan local newspaper about how Hsing Yun criticised something he said. cab (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above GNews link[57] in Chinese is in fact exactly about Pings Xiao. It is his explanation on how Tathagatagarbha relates to modern medical science. This news is a support of his theory and notability. It should not be negatively explained. As for Hsing Yun's criticism in another link[58], that local newspaper stated that it is not correct that Hsing Yun criticized Pings Xiao's personality rather than his doctrine, and all debates should be on the teachings. It is not a negative report to Pings Xiao either.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If someone can write the articles in English, there do not need to be english sources. If he';s controversial, there is obviously something to say. DGG (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no Chinese sources either, as I pointed out above. On what basis exactly are editors supposed to write this article? The extremely verbose say-so of the devotee of his who has hijacked Wikipedia to write an original research essay defending Xiao's non-notable writings? cab (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly- my concern is that for someone who is claimed to have started Buddhist foundations and given talks in the States and elsewhere, he doesn't appear to have garnered any mention in the press or academic sources. There is not a clear assertion in the article of what his notability is, and the paucity of sources in English or Chinese (referring here to things about him, not books he has written) makes it impossible for independent editors to corroborate his notability or write the article. It would be very surprising to me for a religious leader in abroad involved in a notable public dispute, or the leader of a large following, to not have any mention in the English foreign press- consider Phrarajbhavanavisudh, for instance, a person who most Westerners have never heard of, but who is still well documented in the English press because of his leadership of a large temple and role in a major scandal in Thailand, or Hsing Yun who leads a large Taiwanese following with branches abroad. This combination of factors leads me to believe that a neutral, verifiable article about him can not be written at this time. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - DGG's statement points out a fact: Buddhism is an oriental culture and lack of origianl English sources is its nature. If one tries to translate a new further development topic about Buddhism into English, the editors should challenge the correctness of translation and the rationale caomparing to current available English sources because this kind of new information is usually not available in English at the beginning.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP:There is no need to remove this article since the author has been writing a series of books on Tathagatagarbha, which undoubtedly plays an indispensable role in practicing Buddhism. Despite his different views on the dharma progagted by other contemporary Buddhist groups, The Dharma he propagated in his publications is still worthwhile being publicly studied and meticulously examined by the majority of Buddhist groups. Like Hsing Yun, Pings Xiao, also as a founder of a Buddhist group, is an equally important figure in modern Buddhism. Based on the principles of information accessability and documentary integrity, this article can be served as a valuable resource to Wiki page.--Sophia Chen (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

KEEP: This article is clear to introduce the three-vehicle Buddhist dharma and the practicing way, I desire to watch for a long time and hope the editor to write more contents, please do not delete the Wiki page. More person to see, more person be benefits! Thanks a million! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demi Yi (talk • contribs)

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

Keep Although the comtents of two pages are similar ,Pings Xiao is not equal Hsiao P'ing-shih.But anyone who has his spot in the unique noun . I mean two pages are focused on people who are individual.The two pages have their own fans . If you merge one or delete one page, someone can't find his information. In order to protect personal right , keep two page will be good method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shower0514 (talk • contribs)

— Shower0514 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP: This article is clear to introduce the true Three-Vehicle Buddhist Dharma and the right practicing way, many friends of buddhist & me are desiring to read it for a long time and hope the editor to write more contents, please do not delete the Wiki page. More persons want to see, more persons be benefits! Thanks a million! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackie Yeh (talk • contribs)

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

KEEP: I think this page is very valuable for non-Chinese speakers to learn more about Pings Xiao and his views on three-vehicle Buddism and Tathagatagarbha; why someone want to delete it? I do not think it is a good idea to merge this page with "Hsiao P'ing-shih" item, because they are quite different in spelling: most Western people would prefer "Pings Xiao" while Taiwan people would prefer "Hsiao P'ing-shih". Moreover, each page has its unique contents. So I agree with Shower0514 (Upstairs): keeping the both pages would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suibingkuai (talk • contribs)

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

Comment for some reason... no, it can't be. But seriously, are we allowed to strike sock puppet's votes? Or is it the closing admin? - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet/meatpuppet votes are usually just noted, not usually struck unless the sockpuppet is blocked. The closing admin will take into account the sockpuppet/meatpuppet contributions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When it comes to buddhism,what really matters is definitely not notability, and correctness undoubtly should come before it. That said, it bewildered me even more for anyone to claim Pings Xiao, author of more than eighty buddhism books and founder-leader of a buddhist association with five branches and more than five thousand followers around Taiwan island (R.O.C) , as lack of notability. Lack of global notability ,maybe, but lack of notability in Taiwan ? Definitely not! Is Wikipedia a U.S.-limited knowledge treasure or a global embracing, which Taiwan included, versatile website? we will see.

ps. For anyone who needs proof of notability of Pings Xiao, please check the following search results in Taiwan's biggest online bookstore website.

http://search.books.com.tw/exep/prod_search.php?cat=all&key=%A5%AD%B9%EA%BE%C9%AEv

http://search.books.com.tw/exep/prod_search.php?cat=001&key=%A5%AD%B9%EA%A9%7E%A4h

(talk) 15:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

KEEP: I think we don't need to delete the wiki page, because it's very nice to learn more and it's good for the Buddhist to realize more.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.165.228.40 (talk • contribs)

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

KEEP: This article is clear to introduce the true Three-Vehicle Buddhist Dharma and the right practicing way, it is the beacon to me when I am at the bottom of my life. I have learned and gained a lot of profit from here and hope the editor to write more contents, please do not delete the Wiki page. More persons want to see, more persons be benefits! Thanks a lot!--Lucia Wilkinson (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

KEEP: I think it is valuable to keep this page because this page will offer very good knowledge for a person who will learn Buddha Dharma or know what is Buddhism correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chansann (talk • contribs) 09:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

KEEP: This article is clear to introduce the true Three-Vehicle Buddhist Dharma and the right practicing way, it is the beacon to me when I am at the bottom of my life. I have learned and gained a lot of profit from here and hope the editor to write more contents, please do not delete the Wiki page. More persons want to see, more persons be benefits! BR Mavis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavisk (talk • contribs) 11:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

KEEP IT:When I became as Buddhist from Christ, I learn many good concept from this teacher, When we learning should based on Buddhist books & good teacher, This page shows the teacher Pings Xiao and Hsiao P'ing-shih his concept & history of teaching that let more and more people will have a good opportunity to follow & learning, to get many many benefit on this Wikipedia Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YogiYao (talk • contribs) 12:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and stubbify The article itself is crap and needs to be totally rewritten, but the subject seems to have some measure of notability. So delete almost all the unreferenced and PEACOCKy junk, slap a bunch of cleanup tags at the top, and watchlist it to make sure it doesn't get reverted to this. Someone in the future might be able to clean it up for real. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the exact problem. We can't rewrite it. There's almost no third-party sources about him. All we can do is parrot what he says about himself in his own writings. cab (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From the viewpoint of the world of non-English-language, this article is absolutely not notable at least for the moment, but from the viewpoint of the world of Chinese-language, this article is absolutely notable. Even though Wiki uses English as its official language, its readers are from all over the world. So, I suggest to keep this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhi2003 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Bodhi2003 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP: I totally agree with Bodhi2003’s opinion. Please keep this article for numerous readers.--Showmei0128 (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Showmei0128 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP : As a non-Chinese Buddhism practitioner, I have long been searching books on the Tathagatagarbha, widely believed to be the core of the Buddhism. However, due to the language incompatibility (unintelligibility), I have little understanding of essence of Tathagatagarbha and this predicament has kept me from exploring the mystery of Tathagatagarbha for ages. Luckily, one day when I keyed in "witnessed the Buddha-nature" in searching section on Wiki page, it automatically links to one of the Pings Xiao's books named "Buddha-remembrance Without Appearance" below. To my astonishment and delight, the author has such a huge collection of publications, and this indirectly demonstrates his extraordinary competence in writing and profound knowledge about Buddhism. After scrutinizing his page, I have a thorough and rudimentary grasp of what three-vehicle dharma is in Buddhism as well as Chan Schools. Besides, there is a great deal of elaboration on “nirvana” on this page and this is an uncommon but valuable resource. I strongly believe that this page can not only benefit those non-Chinese buddhists who are eager to unveil the mystery of “nirvana” but also establish a brand-new page to the discovery of pristine Buddhism. Therefore, I highly request the intactness of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.195.70.190 (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

KEEP: In terms of historical point of view, Wikipedia should keep the detail information about Pings Xiao as a good historian in Buddhism area. It is a fact that Pings Xiao has published over 100 books about Mahayana Buddhism with over ten thousand students over Taiwan and U.S.A. Even though his writings are in Chinese, I would expect English translations and others will come out soon. I truly believe that Wikipedia is not only a good source of information database but also a true honest historic tracker in different areas. I feel the success of Wikipedia on WEBs is based on the above reasons. Hectorso (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)hector So[reply]

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

Delete - Not knowing Chinese, I cannot check their facts, but I find the arguments of cab and Clay Collier convincing, that there are not enough independent, reliable sources, even in Chinese, for a verifiable, NPOV article. The flood of SPA "Keep"s do not convince me, in fact the more they come the more it seems likely that any article would be hijacked by POV-pushers and partisans and become, like the :zh article, a focus for edit wars. If and when the :zh article stabilises into something neutral and verifiable, then an article here may become possible. JohnCD (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A independent reliable English external link[59] is available.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP -"Not knowing Chinese" is not a good reason to abort someone's contribution because you take away the opportunity of our next generation to learn about the wisdom of Buddhism. This country is a highly respected place because of Freedom of speech and religions. Hectorso (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)HectorSo[reply]

KEEP:We need to keep this page definitely because Hsiao P'ing-shih offers very valuable and true knowledge about Three-Vehicle Buddhist Dharma. He offers not only these but also the correct practicing method. Pls keep this page so more people can see it and get more benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parami95 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Parami95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~KEEP~~: As the disappearance of the doctrine of any religion constitutes an irretrievable loss to mankind, there is a desperate need for us to preserve and value any endangered cultural heritage. Take dead languages for example, occasionally a dead language is resurrected from written records. Thus, The Buddha’s right doctrines and relevant cultural background should be highly valued and preserved by means of written records. The Wikipedia, along with the collective efforts of all humans, plays a crucial role in carrying out this sacred task. The significance of keeping wholeness of all Buddhism culture can not too be re-emphasized because any loss of The Buddha’s Dharma is considered the loss of human knowledge assets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.195.70.190 (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Duplicate Keep by 123.195.70.190 struck. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This is valuable information a oft-not discussed part of Buddhism. Therefore, it must be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyc13 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Jyc13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP: This is helpful knowledge assets. we need more people like him to post all value document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom speak (talk • contribs) 23:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~KEEP~~: Any contribution to Wikipedia should be highly esteemed, for it is the outstanding achievement of human wisdom. If highly preserved, it will subsequently create valuable historical documentary records for our next generations. I sincerely hope any biased judgment can be avoided in dealing with this case, and Wikipedia, a totally neutral party as we all believe, is supposed to grant the author the speech freedom to exercise his basic human right, which is universally valued in most democratic societies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.195.70.190 (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Duplicate Keep by 123.195.70.190 struck. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP:We really need Pings Xiao's excellent exlpanation of the true essence of Buddhism. Through his all published articles or books the genuine Buddhism is entirely revealed. this is condusive to all the people who want to realize the authentic Buddhism taught by the Buddha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chan.tung.chang (talk • contribs) 04:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Three SPA accounts have added additional Keep comments to the AfD page. Providing links to closing admins. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juliehuangmh1970 (talk · contribs): [60]

Mavisk (talk · contribs): [61]

Scl928 (talk · contribs): [62]

~~KEEP~~: I agree with Gogo Dodo that Any contribution to Wikipedia should be highly esteemed, for it is the outstanding achievement of human wisdom. Hectorso (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Hector So[reply]

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

Comment: Duplicate Keep by Hectorso struck.

Comment: The above SPA is very confused by my edits to this AfD. I have made no statement of my opinion in this matter. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keephuman being like listening;watching;eating;touching;feelling. All this condition match on one of them then they say: That's right! correct! good! deluxe!...etc..! I like it! Now if somebody say something against those. What's happen?? will make own just. or fight to death!! I'm right!!And someone all a time say; I'm all a time right??!! how funny isn't it????!!! poor people!!?

Do I have to keep writing??!! May be will get into result "DELETE"; Why?? "none sense"; why?? "poor English"; why?? "no English-language";"DELETE" WHY? "The current article is a mess"; What's else can cause to have a chance to "DELETE". YES??!!! Million reasons to "DELETE". IF NOT IN my side!!! Does human being see that??!!!

Oh,oh!!!! Freedom Speak!!! I love AMERICA...AMERICA.........AMERICA....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom speak (talk • contribs) 02:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

KEEP: I think most of the concerns are no reliable sources about Pings Xiao. The contents of this link[63] can be a good reference. A very unique insight into the whole Buddha dharma and a practice system which is a further development of both Chan and Pure Land practice ways since a thousand years ago are worthy of being disclosed in spite of whether this person is notable or not. In addition, the Google search with the keyword "平實導師" will have 15,700 hits and with the keyword "蕭平實" will have 10,900 hits. That also proves his notability. But as I know it is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute. The value of his system itself is enough.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Jack W Mayer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Yes, as Gogo Dodo mentioned, I am a new Wiki editor and do not have much experience on it. But please consider the fact and the truth rather than my background.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism is traditionally an Eastern culture and not popular in Western world. Therefore, Pings Xiao, as a leader of a Buddhist group in the East, is of course not well-known by the Western people. No wonder very little information in English about him can be found on the Internet. However, to be an excellent and complete worldwide knowledge database, it will be good to have this article to introduce this person and his views on Buddhism to the Western people, even though his viewpoints may be controversial. The controversy, as far as I know, is about the correctness of Buddha dharma but this should not affect the value of the existence of this article. For the first appearance of this article on Wikipedia, the length of it may be further reduced or the editor may consider to rewrite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhi2003 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Bodhi2003 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Honorverse Characters. Nakon 05:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Zilwicki

Non-notable, unsourced, in-universe, plot summary; tagged over a year ago for clean-up [64] and no resolution of concerns. Jack Merridew 06:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Striking nom's double vote. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unstruck; it's quite clear; do not be disruptive. Jack Merridew 07:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jack Merridew 06:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 06:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content to List of Honorverse Characters per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jclemens. We don't delete articles about characters in highly notable works like this one; if they aren't independently notable enough for an article we merge them. That's standard practice, and I don't see why an AFD is needed for this one, which is a pretty clear case. JulesH (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and then discuss whether or not to merge at the appropriate talk page. I';d support the merge, probably. As Jules correctly says, if they're not important enough as separate characters, combination articles preserving content are the way to go. The only real problem is that the combination articles may then be deleted--as is currently being attempted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treecat, and then the articles about the characters as a group, and all reduced to bare lists of names. I cannot tell if this string of nominations against characters and character groups in this fiction is a statement that the fiction as a whole in not important enough for detailed coverage (about which I have no real opinion), or whether no fiction at all should get detailed coverage. If the latter, its the attempt of a small group to wear down the opposition.DGG (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see my comment to a similar post of yours on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Komandorski. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fictional character with insufficient independent coverage to sufficiently establish notabilty outside of the context of the work of fiction the character inhabits.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- a merge is not the way to go because this person is already mentioned in sufficient depth at the proposed target article, and there is no sourced and encyclopedic content to be salvaged. Reyk _YO! 22:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the list of characters, as is a central character in a series of novels (Heirs of Saganami) 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a purely in-universe article with no claim to real-world significance or notability. Eusebeus (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A character found in multiple books, which played a major part in at least one of them. Dream Focus 04:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Honorverse characters Edward321 (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List_of_Honorverse_characters#Zilwicki_to_Zrubek. --EEMIV (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar Damian

AfDs for this article:

The article seems to be a repost of an earlier article. The previous AfD was speedily closed before any discussion, due to an apparent request by the article's creator, User:Tonlist through a blanking of the page. The same issues generally remain, particularly the fact that the subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. This time, I recommend that this AfD be allowed to carried through to completion. Dancter (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:MUSICBIO. Them From Space 05:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have gone straight to speedy delete as per db-bio. Issuing a demo CD does not make you notable. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 09:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with John & Kate Plus 8. Nakon 05:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jon & Kate Plus 8 Books and DVDs

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Jon & Kate Plus 8 Books and DVDs

No need for this to have its own article...the article's content should be incorporated in Jon & Kate Plus 8. I can completely understand creating an article for such a topic if it had a huge amount of content....such as The Simpsons DVDs. However, this does not merit its own article. _scootey ^talk 05:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Maybe later with more detail, but doubtful.75.135.77.154 (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't know how long the show will go one, or how many more books Kate will come out with, I'm thinking ahead on this one. I do know by next year we could have 6 or 7 sets of DVDs in the DVD table, depending on how many episodes there will be for Season 5 and depending on how many DVDs there will be for Season 5. I say this because Season 4, the longest season to date, is being release into volumes. R7604 (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to Keep. Nakon 05:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria–Sudan relations

no real evidence provided of a notable relationship. could easily be covered in Foreign relations of Bulgaria and Foreign relations of Sudan. LibStar (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep and try to develop & if found undevelopable, then consider for deletion Has the nom followed WP:BEFORE, and even tried to look for sources in proper places? That material could be put in other articles is true of almost everything in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that Plumoyr/Groubani tries to look for something relevant before putting these things up in the first place? We both know the answer to that question. Mandsford (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So two wrongs make a right? TheWilyFox (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this may have been a somewhat notable relationship during the Cold War, but the sources just aren't there to show that. Recreate if they turn up, but right now, the salient point (embassies) is covered at the relevant "diplomatic relations of..." articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, and there's no need to accuse the nominator of acting in bad faith either. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone accuse the nominator of bad faith? I missed that. Mandsford (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assume good faith on the part of the editors.... Bulgaria was part of the Ottoman Empire a long while ago. Why delete it? It's perfectly good. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, as far as I can tell, everyone in this debate is assuming good faith and everyone is being civil. We're allowed to disagree with each other's arguments, as long as we do not insult each other personally. Mandsford (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The act of disagreement is not equal to a motion of active deletion. Please use the talk page of the article for discussion. By 'Assume good faith' I mean to say, assume that the article was created in good faith to begin with and should be allowed to exist. --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- And that has what to do with relations between the Republic of Sudan (independent since 1956) and Bulgaria (independent since 1908)? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Especially since Sudan wasn't really part of the Ottoman Empire, if I remember right. Nyttend (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Didn't say it was. The relationship does go back a long way, though. --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is easy to establish in the usual way Bulgaria, Sudan sign trade, investment agreements Diplomatic Dispatches - The Sudanese ambassador discusses relations between Bulgaria and the largest country in Africa Africa on the agenda Sudan: Foreign ministry official receives Bulgarian minister TheWilyFox (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Links 1 & 4 (which are the same) show merely that the two have normal trading relations - which is standard and unremarkable. Link 2 is a little iffy (being written by the mouthpiece of a genocidal government), but does point toward something. Link 3 is even better, talking about labour flows, trade, and the like. Also, there's mention of some relations under Communism, which is a plus (giving a historic perspective). However, given that Bulgaria's relations with Sudan aren't that substantial (even one medium-quality source doesn't fit the "multiple independent sources requirement) or that different from relations with Egypt, Tunisia, and so forth, would it not make much more sense to cover the material under an "Africa" subheading at Foreign relations of Bulgaria, or even in a separate Bulgaria-Africa relations article? This seems to me to be more sensible than chopping into little bits what is and has been a fairly uniform and fairly minor aspect of Bulgarian foreign policy. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what about Sudan's point of view? TheWilyFox (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - At Foreign relations of Sudan, there's certainly scope for an "Eastern Bloc" section, with a short summary of what's been going on since 1989 (a momentous year not just in Eastern Europe, but also in Sudan). Russia–Sudan relations may have independent notability, but again, Sudan's relations with Bulgaria were not that different from its relations with Romania, Poland, Yugoslavia (not in the Eastern Bloc, but could be folded in as well), and so on. Some thousands of students, some technical advisers, some joint anti-Western posturing - that's about it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you want to discuss the same relationship from two different perspectives, which might work, but IMO one would still need a way to find both those other articles from the title "Bulgaria-Sudan relations". Also wherever the embassies are listed. TheWilyFox (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Embassies are at Diplomatic missions of Sudan and Diplomatic missions of Bulgaria; we have special lists of embassies that are (or should be) the first place one looks for such information. Regarding the impossibility of redirecting to both articles from one target: true, but that's not necessarily a fatal flaw. The important thing is that the information would ideally be in both articles, though not in identical form (strict duplication is bad), but rather (as you say) from both perspectives. Anyway, I guess this is a little on Sudan and the Eastern Bloc, and this is specifically about the USSR. Interestingly, although student exchanges went on for many years, Sudan was only actually oriented to the Communist bloc for two years, 1969-71. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice work on that one, and more than we usually see. It's clear from the second and third sources Diplomatic Dispatches| Sudanese ambassador and Africa on the agenda that there has been a friendly relationship between Bulgaria and Sudan, dating back to the Iron Curtain days when Communist nations were seeking "solidarity" with African nations. Sudanese students got degrees from Bulgarian universities, Bulgarian experts helped with Sudan's agricultural and industrial development, etc.; to me, it shows that Sudan and Bulgaria have bilateral agreements on a number of fronts and have had them for decades. Mandsford (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In looking for other sources, Sudan reportedly made "secret" arms deal with Bulgaria and Bulgaria's export control of arms relaxed speak to Bulgaria supplying weaponry and military equipment to Sudan, and the problems that Bulgaria's arms exports have posed in its admission to the EU and to NATO. I think there's enough here, notwithstanding that nobody checked for actual relations when the article was first made at random. Mandsford (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily exceeds the standard set by WP:N, and I see no reason this article needs a higher irregular treatment. See [65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73] 16:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Wily D 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to point out that User:TheWilyFox, who posted above, is a different person than my friend WilyD. The Fox activated an account three days ago, whereas WilyD has been a contributor since '05. The new guy may have meant well, but it's already causing confusion for the rest of us. Mandsford (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial bilateral relationship; no source current in the article makes it notable, and I can find none elsewhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 06:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Album

Apparently a report of a twitter conversation about a proposal for a new album Michael Johnson (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt this Hammeriffic vague album title once and for all. Nate • (chatter) 07:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt , STOP.......Hammer time. Admittedly it still kinda makes me want to name my bands next album Untitled Second Album. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I plan myself to title my upcoming album of waxed paper comb kazoo music through the ages Rhianna's Fourth Studio Album in salute to vague album titles everywhere. Nate • (chatter) 04:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt there is absolutely no need for this article. Salt to prevent recreation of any other "Upcoming Albums" by others in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt and indefinitely block/community ban User:Scottclapsontaylor. Per TonyBallioni and plausible sockpuppetery of the article creator. Junk Police (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability. Rlendog (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete — Lacks any information or reliable sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to Keep. Moving /temp. Nakon 05:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equastone/temp

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Equastone/temp

There was a request (by radiojon (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)) to move Equastone/temp to Equastone, which is a creation-protected page. Page Equastone was deleted 8 times as spam or copyvio in April and May 2007. Has the firm Equastone become more notable since? Page Equastone is linked to from page Pan American Life Center. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spamvertisment for little known company. Subject fails WP:CORP. L0b0t (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did you even bother to read the article or just the deletion log? There is no spamming whatsoever and no advertising whatsoever. It does not list all of the properties, only the notable ones — ones officially defined as skyscrapers because of their height. It is also notable for letting a skyscraper (and office parks) go into foreclosure, which is very rare. (I have added reliable sources on these.) –radiojon (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Of course I read the article and the company website and did a search for the company name. Finding absolutely nothing about this subject that passes muster with the inclusion criteria for corporations, I opt for delete as advertising spam. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says they are an advisory company, but they own these buildings? I don't understand. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close nomination. Deletions due to copyvios or spamming do not address notability and have no effect on future creation. The correct course of action is to post on WP:DRV and see if the temp version is acceptable enough to get the protection lifted. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Often spamming is detected as copyvio because the copyvio detecter finds the same text in the firm's web site and in the Wikipedia page about the firm, if the same man uploaded both. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see anything notable, or even interesting, about this company. It owns some buildings. So what? The fact it is in financial difficulties isn't notable either, certainly not currently! --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to own quite a number, and has fallen into notable financial difficulty with some of them, according to the sources. That wasn't the case in 07. Quite a different situation. Just as the nom asks, it has in fact become more notable since, and how the present article can be construed as a advertisement escapes me entirely. DGG (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom's question (Has the firm Equastone become more notable since?) is easily awnsered, Yes. Foreclosure on 2 skyscrapers is a notable business failure of any 1 company. Spamvertisment ???... please explain how because I cannot see it. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Significant for the company maybe, but how is does a foreclosure on a piece of real estate make a company notable? --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many skyscrapers have you heard of that are in foreclosure? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Phoenix (magazine). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Prendeville

He's the editor of a small magazine with less than a 20,000 circulation.

It may well be that this alone makes him not notable, and certainly not worthy of biography. However, in addition, the sources give us no more to say than "he has been the editor for25 years" and we have already that information in the article on the magazine. So we should either delete this, or redirect. However my attempts to prod and to redirect have been undone. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I contested the prod. The Phoenix (magazine) is a quite well-known political satire magazine in Ireland, and it is intimately connected with Paddy Prendeville who has been its editor almost since the beginning. There is not much to write about Paddy Prendeville, I give you that. I just think that showing "Paddy Prendeville is the editor of the Irish satirical Phoenix magazine" to readers is much more useful and clear that simply redirecting to The Phoenix (magazine). A paper encyclopedia would more likely write
Paddy Prendeville (also Prenderville, Prendiville), editor of Irish satirical magazine →The Phoenix"
rather than
Paddy Prendeville, see →The Phoenix (magazine)
I do not understand the animosity towards short articles that Wikipedians often show. Not every article has to be long. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't have to be long, but an article does need to establish there is enough material to require a split-off. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect there is no information that isn't already covered in the article on the magazine. Separate articles on people are only needed when there's more than a trivial bit of information already covered elsewhere. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sir,
Your august organ purports to be an article on one Paddy Prendeville, a.k.a. Paddy Prendiville. In looking for sources, I am outraged and disgusted to see that there is nothing documenting this person beyond the 1 sentence in your organ and perhaps 1 additional sentence stating that this person was Veronica Guerin's best friend. As any clean, decent, honest, and hardworking ~~taxpayer~~Wikipedian knows, a redirect does more than point readers in the direction of the right article, as a paper encyclopaedia's "see" does. It actually takes them there, too. Your organ is permanently incapable of any growth. I request, therefore, that you cancel my subscription to it.
Yours sincerely, Uncle G (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There is not much to write about Paddy Prendeville, I give you that. That about sums it up. The fact he is the editor of the Phoenix is covered in the article on that magazine. Other than that, there is nothing in this article at all. Redirect to Phoenix, and if anything else comes up, well the article can be re-written. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per several above, seems the most straightforward and reasonable way to handle the topic. Tim Ross (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My New Life Begins

This appears to be a hoax. No references are provided and none can be found. – Zntrip 04:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Eddie.willers (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 2010? WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Blatant and proven hoaxery. Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You lied said i stabbed you to death

This appears to be a hoax. No references are provided and none can be found. – Zntrip 04:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure if this is a hoax article or not, either way it fails to have any notability. Afkatk (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as G3: textbook blatant and obvious misinformation. Graymornings_(talk) 04:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an obvious hoax (e.g, vandalism). Most of the text and track listing information is copied directly from Teenagers (song), including most of the timings. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 05:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia–Zambia relations

another random country combination with no evidence of notable relations. LibStar (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There has to be something notable for an article... surely? --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until there is a chance to properly look for sources. Some of these pairs have turned out to be notable. yes, they shouldn't have been created as stubs, but then they shouldn't have been nominated without searching.DGG (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the debate will remain open for the several days, but these have been created wtihout searching. This guy created [more than 150] and [74] of these articles in two months before being ordered to cease and desist on February 27. Mandsford (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't appear to be any news coverage of a relationship [75] LibStar (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as random bilateral pairing with no sources to show notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-subject. What a waste of time. WillOakland (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete surely there is nothing in this article that can't be adequately covered in the respective "Foreign Relations of..." articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Makes no sense to chase after deletion of more or less non-controversial articles. Zambia ships a lot of copper, there's a potential connection between the two. The future is open, why wouldn't these two countries have something to do with each other? And, one must assume good faith on the part of the editors of the article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Potential" shipments of copper? How about a source? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please assume good faith. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, please. No sources, no notability demonstrated, delete. What's not assuming good faith there? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Asking for sources for articles is not an assumption of bad faith. It's a requisite of an article on Wikipedia. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Accountable, I would point out that there is absolutely no requirement in Wikipedia that we must assume good faith on the part of the editors of any article. The "assume good faith" requirement applies to nominations and to the participants in a debate in the Articles for Deletion. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with you, or with Biruitorul or BlueSquadron, I operate under the assumption that all of us are making our arguments in good faith. Mandsford (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Random, non-notable pairing apparently created in the throes of obsessive-compulsive disorder. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ? What does writing "Kill it with fire!" in the revision history have to do with this? And similar comments in similar current deletion discussion revision histories? Please explain. It is inappropriate. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the first one to show a little humour in edit summaries, and I'm sure I won't be the last. Don't take things so seriously. It's not good for the disposition around here, I know. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 05:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libya–Serbia relations

whilst the 2 countries have embassies in each other, surely any notable material can be covered in Foreign relations of Libya and Foreign relations of Serbia. LibStar (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's nothing more than a stub of information which is probably already covered in the countries "Foreign relations" article. Afkatk (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until there is a chance to properly look for sources. Some of these pairs have turned out to be notable. yes, they shouldn't have been created as stubs, but then they shouldn't have been nominated without searching DGG (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - embassies covered at "Diplomatic missions of..." articles; nothing else to indicate notability. True, 10,000 Yugoslavs worked in Libya in the 1970s (more than in all non-European countries combined), and Tito had good relations with fellow Non-Aligned Movement member Qaddafi; and Libya did make supportive gestures during the various Yugoslav wars. I just don't know if there are enough substantive sources to make something of this. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These two countries are geographically close, on the Mediterranean. And Wiki editors should not be pressured to add pertinent material by deletion motions of non-controversial articles. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Check again: now landlocked. And please, do provide some sources if you'd like to see this kept. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is easy to establish in the usual way: Libya, Serbia sign cooperation agreement. Libya, Serbia-Montenegro sign political consultation memorandum. LIBYA AND SERBIA QADDAFI AND MILOSEVIC CUT A DEAL Libyan leader, Yugoslav deputy premier discuss Kosovo crisis TheWilyFox (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a little surprised myself that the relation is notable, but a cursory examination of the relevent sources reveals that this article meets and exceeds the standard of WP:N, I see no reason to call for a highly irregular outcome in this case, it does not strike me as a very unusual case. See [76][77][78][79][80][81][82] - Muslim country supporting Serbia on Kosovo, sneaking arms past UN sanctions - yeah, a pretty big deal. Wily D 17:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 05:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada–Kenya relations

whilst these 2 countries have embassies in each other, surely any notable material could be covered in Foreign relations of Canada or Foreign relations of Kenya. LibStar (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until there is a chance to properly look for sources. Some of these pairs have turned out to be notable, and i would presume that for a Dominion and a major former colony, there would be quite a bit to say. yes, they shouldn't have been created as stubs, but then they shouldn't have been nominated without searching DGG (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - true, Canada gives (or gave, according to the link in the article) some money to Kenya, but so do lots of other countries. Nothing particularly special about this relationship, it seems, and the embassies (actually High Commissions) are covered in the respective "Diplomatic missions of..." articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article suggests notability to me. TastyCakes (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- While the Canadian government provides lots of information useful in writing an article, independent sources are usually used to demonstrate notability. Wily D 21:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable in the usual way. No argument presented that this is a highly unusual case that needs a highly irregular result. See [83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90] et al. Wily D 21:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the articles thus far found by WilyD assert the significance of the Canada/Kenya relationship on the world stage. Indeed, it seems mostly lopsided in favour of Kenya. One of the articles doesn't relate specifically to Kenya but to Africa as a whole. One other doesn't even seem to mention Canada. Fails WP:N. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So something that's only important in Canada and Africa is not important enough to be covered in Wikipedia? Wily D 12:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the fact that the Vice President has to urge Canada to increase her bilateral engagement to Kenya [91] shows that the relationship is non-notable. Thus, merge and delete per nom. MyDog22 (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything this actually establish the relationship is notable, not all relationships have to be friendly and relationships where a partner is feeling let down by the other country sounds like it can establish notability. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Updating article now with some of the sources given by WillyD and others I have found. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been several notable things happening between these two countries, which are clearly referenced. Dream Focus 00:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AFTER and notability shown. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet another random pair of countries that nothing has been written about. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you reconcile this assertion with the large amount of material written about their relationship? Wily D 12:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —T L Miles (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: References in the article now establish notability: the standards "the significance of the Canada/Kenya relationship on the world stage" or references saying that the relationship should be strengthened some how makes the topic "non-notable" just do not reflect the notability guideline. In a nutshell, the guideline requires third party independent reputable sources giving coverage which "is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." WP:N also states "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself". I don't see any evidence of this happening with ANY of these mass deletions. That should be reason enough to tag them with a Notability tag and close these AfDs. T L Miles (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as the user states above me this article has now establish notability and it seems Kenya and Canada do have some amount of a notable relationship. Cheers Kyle1278 04:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

above should be disregarded as per Wikipedia:NOREASON#Just_a_vote. LibStar (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And above should also be disregarded as it comes from an essay, not a policy. Please see WP:NONO. Note the previous sentence ALSO violates WP:NONO, and comes from an essay... T L Miles (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the usual reasons - reliable sources are in the article (at least right now), both are members of the British Commonwealth, Canada gave foreign aid to Kenya - then cut it off and later gave more, high-level contacts, etc. See my standards. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, I don't see any assertion of notability here. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster newberg (band)

Band has one member who was a former member of Survivor. No sources. Questionable notability, WP:BAND. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 03:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please view the wikipedia page of Jim Peterik and jimpeterik.com for sources. Also please see www.lobsternewberg.com and myspace.com/lobsternewberg. Should I include that within the page? Lobster Newberg is a incredibly fast rising band in the Chicago area, and throughout the US. The band will soon be making an appearance on Last Call with Carson Daly, and this page is very helpful to the readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiphxcin (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted at author's request (CSD G7). R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Meadmore

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Todays news is tomorrows chip wrappers, and since she 1) hasn't done anything else notable, 2) there are many older people and 3) the sun seems to get its jollies from sensationalism (I half expect to see an article titled "HIV-positive muslim gay pedo benefit-stealing asyligrants who are out to touch your kids and insult Princess Di" one of these days) this brush with fame is likely to be fleeting and not worth an encyclopedia article. Ironholds (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It could be said that this is someone notable for WP:NOEVENTS. Bongo matic 04:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are quite a few notable Google News hits on Meadmore -- the Sun obviously isn't the only source that covered this, and there are even many foreign-language results. Not that this alone makes her fit the criteria, just that the wide media attention makes her a better candidate for an article. Graymornings_(talk) 04:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I also believe in taking the long view of encyclopaedic notability, but there are 23,700 ghits for Meadmore and believe she probably qualifies. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC) (creator of article)[reply]

I mean, let me add, just how many 103 year old virgins are there, anyway? Give me 60 years and I'll probably match the record, but... (Sir Isaac Newton was also reportedly a virgin at his death; maybe there is possible category here). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, and explain how articles about 103 year old virgins are of encyclopedic value? We're an encyclopedia, not a news site. To quote the relevant policy: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: ~~it seems from here that being a British centenarian is in itself notable. That~~ Significant news coverage, perhaps it could be merged with an article such as "living British centenarians"? Not sure if such an article exists. TastyCakes (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Initial news coverage isn't something for notability (on its own, anyway); see WP:NOT#NEWS. There is a category for centenarians, yes, but simply being one isn't what makes them notable; they've done other things, be it writing books, acting as a judge, whatever. A good example: we have a category for people born in 1995. This does not mean that this category is evidence that Wikipedia believes being born in 1995 is a criteria for inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that's why I crossed off that first bit when I realised they weren't currently living centenarians but otherwise notable people that had lived to be over 100. Still think an article on currently living centenarians would be notable and that Meadmore would fit well in it. TastyCakes (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such an article falls foul of the same issue; that individuals who are notable only for being over 100 and still alive are not notable. We have a List of centenarians; as you can see the only ones included (for good reason) are those who did other notable things with their lives. Ironholds (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you guys are right, Delete. TastyCakes (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~~Too many centenarians currently~~Sorry, couldn't resist that one. anyway, just being unusually old and decrepit does not make somebody notable. If she survives long enough to be the oldest woman on the planet, that would make her notable. As it is, she does not seem to have done anything extraordinarily notable other than continuing to survive. Firestorm ^Talk 16:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who says she's unusually decrepit? ;-) Graymornings_(talk) 18:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither being a virgin nor being over 100 years old makes one notable; combine the two and they still fail WP:NOT#NEWS (as already stated). Also, per WP:BIO, "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics." Just because they've written a bunch of articles about her doesn't establish notability. Fleetflame 16:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a search engine statistic. As I understand that would be writing an article on X because googling X gives many hits. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's the difference between that and keeping an article just because of it? There has to be something else. Fleetflame 17:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No one is claiming that the argument is that it turns up a lot of google web hits. The point is that we have many reliable sources which are what confer notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's basically the only reason that this article might be kept -- there's no lack of reliable sources or prominent news coverage. I don't think we want to open up the door for every fifteen-minute celebrity, though, and this woman doesn't seem to be of lasting importance beyond a week or so of soft-news stories. After a good look at this coverage, I'm ready to vote delete. Graymornings_(talk) 22:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT a tabloid. Also this is sort of WP:BLP1E: the event being that the press has discovered a salacious fact (105year old virgin) and parrot each other for a few days (which of course leads to multiple publication, but not necessarily what one would call multiple reliable sources). If we think the fact is encyclopedic it can be included elsewhere (perhaps illustrating something about the history of sexual mores, or about media treatment of them), but there's no reason to have a bio article on someone known for a single piece of trivia. Rd232 ^talk 13:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For gosh sake, delete this thing already!! and put me out my misery! Thanks, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]
- As you wish. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 05:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bar Wizards

Losers of a TV-show, WP:BLP1E very few sources. Otterathome (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Afkatk (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 1) While they're not musicians, WP:MUSIC criterion 9 "Has won or placed in a major [music] competition." should apply. They're not just any loser, they were finalists. 2) BLP1E doesn't apply since they were not just competitors in BGT but also made several noteworthy appearances afterwards. 3) The references meet WP:GNG since they're from a variety of sources and cover a time range long after the BGT competition. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Yes they are not musicians and BGT is not a major music competition, it's a talent show. 2) what noteworthy appearances are they? 3) all the sources are within 4 months of each other, so you are wrong there.--Otterathome (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) They might not be musicians, but BGT is a major competition. Notable judges, large prizes (lots of money and contracts), massive audience. 2) Read the article. 3) I find 4 months long, you think it's short. We'll have to agree we disagree there. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it wasn't a major competition, I just said it wasn't a music competition. Currently, it barely passes the standard WP:NOTABLE guidelines. Source 1 isn't substantial coverage, source 2 is dead and from the official BGT website, source 3 is ok and source 4 is from the University of Hull website about the opening of their bar. It is all very WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS sounding.--Otterathome (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the whole of the UK have heard of them through a talent show, then how can anyone say they are not notable? Clearly passes WP:NOTABLE, and just about passes WP:NEWS which it definately did back in '07. [[Andrew RACK]] (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Clearly passes'? Well if it clearly passes then where's all the substantial coverage?--Otterathome (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged by someone else. . –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Storm Bijli

The storm does not warrant an article as of now, it has very little information, and is improperly titled Cyclone biskit 02:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an ongoing event and, at the moment, not newsworthy. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the seasonal page - As Cyclonebiskit says this Cyclone isnt worthy of an article yet - though if forecasting predictions come true then it will be and i think the article would be placed at Cyclone Bijli Jason Rees (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Very little information" and "improperly titled" are not valid reasons to delete an article; rather, these issues should be addressed through editing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just as user Jason Rees says, little information and improper title are no valid reasons to delete an article. These are what leads to article development later. And ...the first cyclonic storm in Northern India... seems to be quite an important article. Kind regards to all. Rehman (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is not true actually. There have been countless storms in northern India, Bijli is just the first storm of the season, nothing special, it happens every year. Cyclone biskit 03:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I said that, but no matter! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although very short, Bijli will probably cause a lot of damage, put the majoredit template on until the storm dissipates. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 04:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - Don't start articles on active storms without discussing them first. It hasn't even done anything. This shouldn't be considered for an article until reliable information comes out. Potapych (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - All off the content has been merged into Cyclone Bijli. Jason Rees (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. classic one event, inappropriate even for a redirect DGG (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon-Paul Gilhooley

One of about 100 people killed in this disaster. Not really notable. There's some fairly trivial connection to someone that might be notable, but that's it. This article can never really grow past the one-liner that it is. Tragic, but WP:NOT for memorials. eaolson (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This is not a Hillsborough memorial website. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a memorial, or if the info. is deemed significant to the article on the disaster then merge and rd. JJL (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while this young lad's death was obviously tragic, being related to famous people does not make him more notable than the 95 other victims. No need to merge, as his name and relation to Gerrard were already mentioned in the main article on the disaster anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far from notable. – LATICS talk 07:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as per nom. (Quentin X (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Yes, his death was tragic, but how does being related to Stephen Gerrard make him any more notable than any of the other 95 who died at Hillsborough? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the disaster article. His relationship to the Gerrards (since there are two a redirect to either of them is unworkable) means his name is a likely search term for readers to use. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, we only have a confirmed source that he was Steven Gerrard's cousin. Although Steven and Anthony Gerrard are cousins, that doesn't automatically mean that Gilhooley was in turn cousin to both of them..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm afraid he's no more notable than the other 95 victims, and his relationship to Steven Gerrard is already noted in the main article; this article doesn't add any more information to Wikipedia, and it's unlikely that much more than the circumstances of his death and his relatives are notable for a ten-year-old. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DONT DELETE... Its useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.69.154 (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does it really matter if he wasn't a notable person in his own right? He still died at Hillsborough, you insensitive clods. Andrew RACK 16:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yes ... it matters a lot actually on Wiki. Check WP:N, we can't have an article here about all 96 people who died. – LATICS talk 17:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's not an article on all 96 people who died so why not pay the boy and Steven Gerrard some respect by remembering those that died. He is like the statue of this accident, and since this disaster how many more disasters such as this one have occured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.231.187.216 (talk • contribs)

Not a matter of respect. Matter of notability. – LATICS talk 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Suggest this is a snowball. TastyCakes (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say don't delete as it mentions WHY this particular person is notable. If the decision is taking to delete it, maybe a merger of other Hillsborough victims into one article is a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.101.51 (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's already a full list of victims at Hillsborough Disaster -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per eaolson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.129.10 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:ONEEVENT, fails WP:N. Mentioned in Gerrard's article, no substance or encyclopedic value in stand alone article.--ClubOranje^T 10:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the exception of Tony Bland, none of the victims were notable enough for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and notability is not inherited. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL. --Angelo (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus clear that it's a truly arbitrary list DGG (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Fathers

List organization and Original Research in question. Cited reliable sources only support claims that the individuals in this article are indeed called father of something. The lumping together of Philippine fathers on the other hand is only supported by a blog source. The monikers of being the father of something should be added (and cited) in the person's own wiki article if they're notable. This article is like lumping the Father of Bebop and the Father of the Internet in a list called "American Fathers" because they happened to be called fathers and they're both Americans. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an extremely arbitrary list with trivial, not encyclopedic value. The title "Father of <something>" is given out too liberally in many fields to be of use. --seav (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with above. JJL (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Afkatk (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research sourced only to a blog; it's sufficient to mention the titles in the respective biographies, if relevant. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not an encyclopedic topic. Tim Ross (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Timlight (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that get us any closer to satisfying WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:NEO, etc? - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It suggests that Timlight does not know about User:Timlight/sandbox where perhaps this should have gone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Timlight/sandbox so the author may continue to work on this article/list. It has potential. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. We shouldn't lead editors to believe anything resembling this might be appropriate for inclusion by userfying their junk for them. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Biruitorul. This is original research. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious original research. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 All, Nakon 05:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani Fijian

Per comments by myself, Guettarda, and R45 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistani Trinidadian. All of these articles have an extremely similar form of original research, which is why I have made this a bundled nomination: they effectively invent Pakistani populations out of thin air from

Muslims of any South Asian descent
People whose ancestors emigrated from northwestern parts of British India decades before there was any thought of such a country as Pakistan

But in reality very few such people identify as Pakistani (Adil Ray notwithstanding), nor do sociologists who study their communities identify them as Pakistani. Populations of actual Pakistani nationals and their descendants in all of these countries are miniscule and fail WP:N.

List of Google searches

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

In short, there are no non-trivial, reliable sources on these topic. Searching for terms like "Pakistani South Africans", "Pakistani Kenyans", etc. just gets you Wikipedia articles and blog/forum posts. Searching for "Pakistanis in South Africa" gets you cricket news. There's one minor lawsuit brought by Pakistani international students against an institute in Fiji [92]. A website AfricaIntelligence.com makes wild claims of 40,000 Pakistanis in Kenya in the context of an article about global terrorism, which you'll find in no other source. Etc. You can see all the searches I tried in the hidden box above. cab (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research, with no notability, as shown through the nominator's exhaustive searches. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR per nom. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a little torn on this one. On the one hand, yes these people migrated before Pakistan existed and probably don't self identify as Pakistani-Fijians. On the other hand, there are articles on all of thse groups: South Indians in Fiji,Gujaratis in Fiji,Sikhs in Fiji,Hinduism in Fiji,Arya Samaj in Fiji, Islam in Fiji and Fiji Hindi. I suppose the best fit would be "Islam in Fiji", or perhaps renaming it "South Asian Muslims in Fiji". TastyCakes (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Islam in Fiji is pretty much synonymous with South Asian Muslims already, and that article has plenty of relevant sources whereas Pakistani Fijian has none—a merge would just degrade the quality and a redirect would make little sense because "Pakistani Fijian" isn't even a real-world term. I'm perfectly amenable to new articles like Urdu language in Fiji, Sindhis in Fiji, Kashmiris in Fiji, etc. if someone can find sources, but this article is just a piece of boilerplate junk that was created in order to puff up the Pakistani diaspora template to make it look big and important like Indian diaspora template, and has nothing to contribute to any of those potential topics. cab (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CAB, just to remind you, the actual population figures that are listed in the infobox do not randomly include "people of Pakistani origin" (which I think is your conception). They only include the "actual" number of Pakistanis in those countries (and you can refer to the Pakistani diaspora page for reference), and I do not think that figures like 2,500 Pakistanis in South Africa or a thousand Pakistanis in Tanzania or at least 2000 Pakistanis in Kenya are "miniscule" (provided with the fact that all these pages also have at least 1 notable person from the community) especially when that "big and important" Indian template you seem to be talking about has useless pages like Indians in New Caledonia (talking about roughly 500 people), Indian Mexican (uh....400 people), Indians in Iran (supposedly 1000 but no mention anywhere), Indians in Vietnam (320 people). Please use logic instead of recieving an emotional setback and thinking that this is another "Pakistani conspiracy" against India, which all Indians think. Regarding the original research, such as those specific "people of Pakistani origin", though I won't dismiss the fact that many people did and do trace their roots to modern-day Pakistan ( i know a south african guy who supposedly says his ancestors came from Hyderabad), I think it will be appropriate to arrange the removal of that content as there are lack of sources. Just deleting those pages on the basis of thinking that they have been designed as a reply to Indian populations is not rational.

Furthermore, the statement written on the Pakistani South African page just seemed like a generalisation which was basically saying that there are a fair bunch of lads who have a relation with Pakistan considering they're ancestors migrated from there (and people did come to South Africa from present-day Pakistan), but anyways, I've removed that since thats the main topic of the heated issue. At the moment, I think i'll support the deletion only for the Pakistani Fijian page.Teckgeek (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The size of these populations is not the main problem. The real problem is that they "fail WP:N" as I wrote above, which means, in clearer terms, that no scholars, journalists, or other reliable sources have written anything about them. You can find lots of books which talk about Indians in Vietnam, which is why that article is not going to be deleted: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Can you point us to a single book chapter, newspaper column, or academic journal submission which discusses the Pakistani community (not just examples of individual guys who say they're Pakistanis) in Kenya/Tanzania/SA? cab (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know, I've added some stuff about the food and cuisine of the Pakistanis in South Africa, and the website where I got it from has been listed in references. There you go- the page itself says in the introductory section that "there is also a fair sized Pakistani community in South Africa."121.222.21.53 (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems. One of which is that you just copied the text off that website and pasted it into the Wikipedia article, which is a copyright violation. I cannot emphasise enough in asking you, please do not do that again. The second is that this is still quite trivial as far as coverage goes: a couple of paragraphs of restaurant reviews on a government website. For example, consider another small migrant community in Africa, Filipinos in Nigeria. That article has 14 different newspaper citations, and more are easily located (e.g. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Or Chinese people in Ghana, which also has lots of sources and one aspiring professor is even writing his PhD thesis about them. This illustrates the minimum standard of coverage we look for on articles about immigrant groups --- multiple (i.e. not just one) instances of non-trivial (i.e. not just a couple of paragraphs) coverage in reliable sources (where academic journals, books chapters, and newspaper columns are all highly preferred to random websites). The "Pakistani South African", Pakistanis in Kenya, and Pakistanis in Tanzania articles are still well short of such standards, and I don't see any evidence that it can reach them based on the sources available. cab (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Coverage" is not really of a concern; Wikipedia is all about factual sources, whether you find them one way or the other. Additionally, I have also managed to find some proof of Pakistanis in Tanzania which has been added to the article with the respective sources also given. This is yet an outright example that the research you performed to get info on these various topics was either rough or careless or you didn't take the initiative to fully explore relevant texts. Teckgeek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.101.199 (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact, "coverage" is a very large concern. Wikipedia is about summarising significant secondary sources about topics, not cobbling together one-word mentions from sources which are mainly devoted to other topics. Your MSN Encarta link mentions Pakistanis in a laundry list of ethnic groups in one sentence. The EveryCulture and Noor-Al-Islam links mentions Pakistanis in two sentences. They don't have any discussion on the community beyond "yes, they exist", "they're Muslims", and "they own businesses". And your final link again does not discuss the Pakistani community in Tanzania except in one paragraph; the rest consist of summarizing some gentleman's speech about Pakistan's economic development. This is not even remotely enough material for an article, it is worth a short mention on Demographics of Tanzania at best. cab (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a minor community we are talking about - you don't expect me to find a colossal manuscript, do you? I can see that it is quite easy to sit behind a keyboard and proudly evaluate all these points. Indeed: Yes, they exist. They're Muslims. They own businesses. Well, guess what? This is an encyclopedia mate - we include any fact that is relevant to a specific topic, and those "yes-they-exist" quotes do warrant the fact that there are Pakistanis living in Tanzania or residing in Tanzania - and therefore we come to the conclusion that they are a distinct ethnic group (although a small one) just like any other small ethnic group is.

You were first saying that there are absolutely no links to match the article, and now that I am trying to pile up certain quotes, you've suddenly changed your stance along the biased attitute I could have expected.

Wikipedia is about summarising significant secondary sources about topics, not cobbling together one-word mentions from sources which are mainly devoted to other topics. Please provide me any set of rule on Wikipedia that clearly says that each and every article that is published on this encyclopedia requires some "whole independent, seperate page" from another website; because you're the first user I've seen so far manufacturing this self-made policy. I am also assuming that you have heard of a Stub before.

Last of all, if you are really concerned about when it comes to sources, I believe you haven't reviewed the Indian Mexican article yet - pure original research by the looks of it. All I could find in Google was stuff about the native Mexican Indians. Teckgeek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.169.175 (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for a new article about Iranian Balouch in Hyderabad. There is a large thriving comuunity consisting of at a few thousand people living in present day Hyderabad (on Gul Shah Bokhari road) that trace their origins to what is part of Irani Balouchistan. But very few written words can be found about these ppl because of illiteracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChJameel (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 05:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of regions of space in the Honorverse

There are no reliable independent sources that establish the geographic regions of space in these works of fiction or otherwise make this a topic on its own that would pass the notability guidelines here. While I'm sure it's of some interest as a plot element that "such and such" is in "secton b" which is "very far away" from the homeworld, there is no out of universe value to any of that. It's plot elements about stuff being near, or far, or in proximity to some other plot element. Please, wikipedia is not a fan-site. Bali ultimate (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant fancruft. eaolson (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep plausible fork-for-length of Honorverse#The "Honorverse" universe. JJL (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the list of planets and list of nations to create a List of locations in the Honorverse 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 06:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 06:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable, excessive unsourced detail. No objection to Wikia having it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the list of planets and list of nations to create a List of locations in the Honorverse. Three articles become one. Obvious best solution. Debresser (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the proposal of all three articles and am willing to carry it out right away. Debresser (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion especially:
You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of GFDL). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy. This is not an issue, however, if the merged content is not merely copied and pasted, but instead completely rewritten so that only uncopyrightable facts are transferred, not copyrightable expression.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm waiting. Debresser (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cool; I was concerned about the 'right away'. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I meant "right away" if a merge would get consensus (which it deserves). Debresser (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Being able to identify the various locations is an important aspect of being able to understand the plot of these books; without the ability to refer to some form of description of these locations the plot summaries would become rather difficult to understand. Merging the information into the plot summaries would be an incorrect approach as that would lead to unnecessary duplication, and increase the length of the plot summaries to an unacceptable degree, therefore this information should not be deleted. There is no need for multiple articles to exist, however. JulesH (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any reviewing admin, please be aware that Debresser has engaged in canvassing over this AfD, specifically asking certain editors to come support him.[93][94][95][96] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my talk page that I've informed just those four editors (and they haven't show up yet), because they have contributed significantly to Honorverse articles in the past and have partaken in other discussions about Honorverse articles as well, but for one reason or the other hadn't expressed their opinion here yet. It is true that I asked them to support the merge option, unaware that I wasn't supposed to do so. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I've added this comment to keep my good faith reputation. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE DELETION, MILD SUPPORT FOR MERGE, OPPPOSE DELETION FLURRY:

I AM a reviewing admin, and am one of the editors Debresser informed in the alleged 'canvassing'. I had already responded to such a proposal at Treecat and List of treecats before hearing from Debresser, with whom my only prior interaction was a long running and still continuing dispute over the accuracy of a phrase he has inserted into all the Honorverse articles. I'm not the sort of admin who spends much time on the various deletion lists or referring such in any case, but thanks for the concern to avoid wasting my time. And thanks to Debresser for alerting me to what seems to have become a concerted campaign in favor of deleting Honorverse articles.

I understand the motives in this, and in several other prior cases, surrounding the Weber books, but disagree with the understanding of WP policy reflected by this flurry of deletion requests, page blanking, and so on. I do not defend the prose quality of any of these articles (well, with the possible exception of Treecat, to which I've contributed), but note WP articles have a typical life cycle, during which editors attempt to improve their quality. I've been a significant contributors to several Featured Articles and so have some understanding of that life cycle. Indeed some of those articles have been degraded by subsequent editors and have lost their FA status, another aspect of that life cycle.

In this case, I disagree with the over exclusionist take on WP policy. It's one of a series of such nominations, all seemingly from the same wrong take on WP policy. Certainly the content of this (and all articles) should be improved, and perhaps our Gentle Reader would be better served by a merged article as suggested by Debresser above. So I, mostly, favor the suggested merge.

I MOST DEFINITELY do NOT favor deletion of content from WP. WP is intended to be a general purpose encyclopedia, and a fictional series with multiple books, multiple bestsellers, an active discussion group (on the publisher's site), and multiple writers contributing to stories in the universe, certainly has a place in WP. The series is broadly satirical of historical events (eg, the French Revolution) and the vices and virtues of centralized government (eg, Communist totalitarianism), and has a distinct perspective on cultural economic policy (eg, SKM taxation policy, ...), includes humorous stories, etc.

If this series and the subsidiary articles are alleged to fail WP policy, then all fiction must necessarily do so as well. Such things as the Hornblower series, the O'Brien Aubrey/Maturin series, Faulkner's Y... County series, J D McDonald's Travis McGee books, Robert Heinlein's Future History series or World as Myth series, Larry Niven's Known Space series, Spider Robinson's Callahan series, and so on and on. There is no possibility that such a fictional series would have references in the real world, except the accidental ones. McGee living on a houseboat he won in a poker game, and being based in Florida, or Hornblower living and sailing in the era of the Napoleonic Wars, or similar trivia. And still less for the science fiction series, based as they mostly are in space to which even accidental reference is so far impossible. Such a connection should not justify presence on WP and if it does (or lack of such justifies exclusion) WP's mission will have been seriously violated. ww (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't commented on this article, not realizing yet another Honorverse article had been nominated for deletion. There was no Rescue tag to bring attention towards it, and its not listed on any of the AFD categories I regularly check. Dream Focus 14:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a legitimate list, for a notable aspect of a popular series. There is enough valid information to fill its own article, so no need combining it with another which would cause that one to become too long. Dream Focus 14:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm trying to understand the "in-universe" argument. It's fiction. FICTION. As a result, the only "out-universe" kind of fiction which might not be susceptible to that "in-universe" statement is a soap opera or maybe some kind of historical drama. Any science fiction or fantasy is going to be "in-universe". Since many of the people who contribute to Wikipedia are computer literate, they also tend to be science fiction and fantasy fans, meaning that such is going to be the kind of stuff they will contribute. If you ban it, you eliminate a large part of what people here will be interested in, will be looking for, and will contribute.

More, it's popular fiction, which makes it notable. Just because the exclusionists here don't like it is immaterial as to whether it belongs here. Or are you trying to drive many Wiki editors away? - Denimadept (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've misunderstood completely. Notable works of fiction are covered at wikipedia. However, works of fiction have things embedded within them that, while notable in that fictional universe, are not notable in the real world -- hence the "in-universe" distinction. Now, some aspects of fiction get substantial real world scholarship and interest, which explains why we might have an article on Jay Gatsby or Yoknapatawpha County (though just reviewing this last, it's a tragic excuse for an article on a fictional place, and i'll fix it myself later today). In those two and many other cases, these aspects of fiction have demonstrable real world notability, which is kind of the minimum for inclusion in a real-world encyclopedia. List of regions of space in Honorverse? Not so much.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Jay Gatsby is just a redirect to that novel. I guess the academic sources i assumed would be there aren't even there for him and this highly notable fictional character (extensive independent reportage and scholarship on him) was deemed insufficiently notable outside of his universe.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So a fictional element needs to be around for 80 or so years in order for people have time to publish about it? Kinda excludes almost every contemporary writer from consideration. Sorry, not really buying that argument. - Denimadept (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not 80 years. Not any kind of time limit. We just will write an encyclopedia article about a fictional element apart from the work of fiction that contains it when there's sufficient independent coverage to allow for verification, establish notability, etc... we shouldn't write articles in the hopes that some day something may become independently notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We often split articles when they get too large, or when the focus becomes too diffuse. - Denimadept (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see User:ww's post, above. He takes what I've said and goes much further with it. - Denimadept (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The merge proposal to "list of locations" has some merit as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for clearly failing WP:NOT#PLOT. Zero notability asserted either. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to list of locations. Reasonable breakout article per WP:WAF. Hobit (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate and unreferenced listcruft, clutter. --EEMIV (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument "Listcruft" = I don't like it. Not indiscriminate because it does not in fact include every possible location, as a fan site would. There is no general agreement about what notability criteria apply to fictional elements, but that's not even relevant: this is a a combination article for many things which probably are less than notable. The individual parts of an article do not have to be individually notable, or every paragraph of Wikipedia would be a separate article. Handling them this way is an appropriate compromise. Refusal to accept articles like this is essentially a refusal to accept any compromise on fiction, for it is only through such articles that a compromise is reachable. DGG (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think it would be appropriate for whoever closes this to be someone who has not closed other articles on this general topic. DGG (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Listcruft, which doesn't mean that I don't like it. Listcruft means that the subject matter isn't appropriate for a list. There are many things that are not appropriate for an encyclopedia and many valid points listed at the listcruft essay and none of them constitute "I don't like it". This list violates WP:WAF and WP:N as it is a fully in-universe plot summary of a fictional world. Wikipedia articles must be backed up, per WP:WAF, by real-world notability as notability isn't inherited from its parent topic. The individual list as a spinout topic, must be notable under WP:N to have a separate article in the mainspace. I also note that the article currently contains zero sources for verification although it has been at AfD for a full 7 days. Either nobody wants to clean this up, or it just can't be done. This is what AfD is for, to get rid of articles that cannot be properly sourced. As it stands this is original research and just that alone is grounds for deletion. Them From Space 05:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 06:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Englesi

Prod contested with the rationale, "This language is still being developed. Within 5-6 months, it will be a notable language." Therefore Delete for now, with no prejudice against recreation in 5-6 months, that is, after the language has become notable. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for 5-6 months per lack of reliable sources for the language. I have no problem with recreating the article in a few months IF the language becomes notable. Tim meh ! 01:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:CRYSTAL. The article states that version 2 may not be complete ...within the next few months or even in five years. Pah! Eddie.willers (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons, such as, really, lack of existence. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May not be complete within the next few months or even in five years no, just no... - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 02:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - admittedly not notable. Recreate if and when it becomes notable. LadyofShalott ^Weave 02:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a place to post your half-baked ideas. Ironholds (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn as being in the box office top 10 is now a standalone notability guideline. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name

Unnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N. Was merged months ago to Bleach (manga), but has since been reverted under the claim that its being released is enough to exist and has to be taken to AfD. Article adds no validly sourced information not already better covered in main Bleach article. Name is invalid as film is not licensed in English and has no official English name. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, no reviews, and certainly not at least two by any nationally known critics. No awards. Nothing. Note, asking primarily to have it deleted then recreated as a redirect as a likely search term. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you Colectonian for taking it into a proper discussion forum (now that we have run out of revert-to-redirect's on main article :). Reasons for notability: 1) #2 or #3 in Japanese 10 Ten Boxoffice hits during its release week; in Top 10 for 5 weeks 2) part of the major franchise 3) It seems no less notable and no less referenced than the 2nd movie, which I don't see had any issues with notability, and to be honest, the same holds true for the 1st movie, who has a few more refs due to to the English DVD release. Further, the 2nd movie was created several months before the movie hit the screens; the same is true for the 1st one. What makes the third movie different? 4) the article for this movie was created several times in this and other (now redirected) articles over the past few months, by several editors independently, indicating a popular demand (and need...) for this article (and then redirected by Collectonian...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out reasons for notability that are actually noted as criteria per Wikipedia guidelines, and not your personal views. Box office rankings are not among those. Nor is the existence of the other two film articles a valid keep reason WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and it should be noted that merging of the other two films WAS discussion, but kept separate as they have been released in English as well and reviewed by multiple reliable sources, unlike this one). Also, please state the situation honestly. Articles for this film have been created under 3-4 different names (because there IS no official English name), and this has been reverted/redirected by MULTIPLE editors from the anime/manga project. Claiming I am the only one to redirect it is a gross misrepresentation of the situation, and rather bad faith suggestion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the title is possibly wrong and/or can change when the movie is officially released is no reason to delete it. I think we may even have a proper template for it. When the official English title is out, a move will be simple. And my cursory glance and this and other articles/discussions indicates that you are the primary (but yes, not the sole) proponent of the unnotability argument for this movie. Not that I think this is important, everybody is entitled to their opinions here. I am not assuming any bad faith towards you, I am just assuming, based on your past history, that you are convinced that this movie is unnotable. I don't think you are going to dispute this assumption of mine? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I'm not the primary proponent, I'm just the one who happens to be online ridiculous amounts of times and usual notice it faster than most. And I believe the film fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this time. Hence its being properly merged to the main article, which contains all of the pertinent info. This new article adds nothing except perhaps the one line about the box office performance, which can easily be added to the main article. The film is not licensed at this time, and there is absolutely no guarantee it will be. Just because Viz licensed the first two doesn't mean they will do the third. The film has not received the appropriate and necessary significant coverage to warrant a standalone article. And we all know the old saying about "assumptions". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) First, is this the official title of the film? Because based on reliable sources, the official title is Bleach: Fade to Black - Kimi no Na o Yobu. Second, has this film been reviewed by two or more nationally recognized critics and can these reviews be provided? The rest of the coverage fails WP:NOTE for being trivial and WP:NF doesn't say anything about box office success. The fate of this article depends on those reviews as I don't see any of the other criteria in WP:NF being applicable. --Farix (Talk) 02:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not, it isn't. Its the best guess translation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable based on its box office results mentioned at Anime News Network. Searching for the Japanese name for it, and whatever the Japanese name for box office results are, major newspapers will probably give some mention of it. But its notable for being so well ranked in the box office of the second wealthiest nation in the world. Guidelines are suggestions, not policy, that's why we can keep articles about bestselling novels and other things that are clearly notable, even if the guidelines don't currently have that listed as a reason to include things. Dream Focus 02:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on box office results alone. With it doing that well, it is very likely there are articles in multiple magazines, newspapers, etc. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query: Do I understand this right? You are asking the community to delete the edit history of an article that has been merged (and I suppose the merged content is still present in the merge-target article)? If that is so, then it would seem to me that this is the wrong forum. A split discussion should be held instead. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think technically it was split out from the main originally, of a sort. I use the term merged, but really, none of the content of the previous versions (under its many names) was moved over as it was pure plot, and the version in the article was written purely for that article. I'd also tend to agree, however Piotrus did not wish to allow such a discussion to occur and demanded it be taken to AfD, and after he filed an AN/I report complaining that multiple editors had reverted and asked him to discuss whether it should be resplit, the article is now here instead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Never mind then. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the right place (I indeed requested it). This is not a request for deletion of history but a debate whether the article is notable or not (previously it has been redirected instead of AfDed). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article['s history] should be deleted." -- Goodraise (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the box office performance, reviews in reliable sources should exist. Any films that opens in the top 10 in the U.S. would have dozens of reviews and easily pass the notability guidelines for films, and I don't doubt that a film opening in the top 10 in Japan also has multiple reviews in reliable sources. I think deleting articles like this one would be introducing bias, as the reason no one has found reviews is because users of the English language Wikipedia don't know where to look for reviews of Japanese films, not because reliable sources actually don't exist. Calathan (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it'd need to be bulked up with more information on the film. Afkatk (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Name "Bleach: Fade to Black" is on the official Japanese website and in the trailers so the claim that it doesn't have an English name appears false. Looks expensive too, which means this likely will be released internationally soon enough. jbolden1517 ^Talk 04:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per that, its name is Bleach: Fade to Black without the rest. How does a movie "look expensive"? And how does that make it likely to be released internationally soon? Many many many anime films are never licensed and released anywhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they spend a lot of money on something, they are more likely to try to promote it worldwide. Depends on how successful their release in other nations were for their other stuff also. Dream Focus 05:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - notable film which has amassed considerable box office success. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 05:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The box office success settles the score for this one. Sure that one must have got some serious coverage by Japanese Media that release was obviously too big to be overlooked. We need just someone fluent in Japanese to dig for sources. --KrebMarkt 06:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The box office success does it for me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Farix has already pointed out, to keep the article we need those reviews by "nationally recognized critics". Just because majority of people vote for keeping the article is no reason to keep the article. Even I would like to vote for the article because I'm a Bleach fan. But let's try to adhere to the policies mentioned in WP:NF. Considering the box office success, I'm sure there are more than two critics in Japan who would have reviewed the movie, but it will take someone who can understands japanese to find them and I don't understand Japanese. Can someone dig out such reviews? eZio (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, in a case such as this, and given the box office numbers, the keep opinions are perfectly valid and acceptable, even if the reviews are not able to be located within the timeframe of the AfD. Because of the success of the film, it is entirely acceptable to assume that the articles and reviews exist, and due to the difficulty in finding such reviews by someone not within Japan, close it as keep and allow for a reasonable amount of time after the AfD to locate said reviews and articles. This plays again into the systemic bias mentioned already: because of the success, the reviews and articles should exist, and just because someone can't find English language reviews doesn't mean that other language reviews don't exist. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And no, we do not "need" those reviews... as they are just one of the listed attributes that "might" be indicative of notability. And of course, a "nationally recognized critic" in Japan, may likley not be "recognized" in the United States. That's why it is only an indicator, not an absolute. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not absolute, but since box office success is not that list (the reason for that has already been discussed on the WP:NF talk page), we need some other criteria to show the article's notability. If you can, please share another criterion which can justify not deleting the article. Also I don't think it matters if the critic is not recognized in United States. By national they're referring to the country in discussion. eZio (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was merged before and split out because someone thought it should be. Whether it should be merged back or kept separately, is a discussion for WP:MRFD. Deletion is not the way to solve a disagreement on where to have content. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't the place for this discussion. yandman 12:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a deletion discussion; if AfD isn't the place for it, where is? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; this film has been out since December, and in spite of repeated attempts to spin out a separate article for it, and repeated statements that reviews "must exist" because of the box office ratings, no such reviews have been shown to actually exist. Ordinarily, I'd probably !vote weak keep or userfy (actually, I would support userfication in this case), but there's a ridiculous amount of drama around this (wait... is that WP:POINTy?). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Weak keep - after Nihonjoe pointed out the 5-page spread in Animage. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a 5 page article in the January 2009 issue of Animage. Based on that, it is extremely likely that there is a similar article in Newtype and other magazines as well, given how popular the Bleach series is and how well the movie did at the box office in Japan. As Animage is the only one I get out of those, I can't say whether any of the others have an article, but your assumption that there are no articles until someone shows you proof is a little off base for a show which did so well in the box office. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could you add the Animage references to the article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for actually pointing to coverage, Joe. And please note that I wasn't assuming there was no coverage, but merely pointing out that, throughout all this splitting and remerging, no one had actually pointed to any. Needless to say, it would seem that my technique was successful. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dinoguy1000 (About the wiki-drama) I'm still laughing about how silly i'm. I view this Afd as a brilliant bureaucratic stonewalling with good sense turned-off. At best, even if it is deleted it will just bought 1 or 2 years before too many evidences of notability and licensing make it impossible to say it is not notable. Participating this Afd is outright close to useless because regardless the result this article will exist and stand unquestioned within two years, thanks to Bleach fanboys and fangirls. I'm participating this Afd because i read the word BIAS. --KrebMarkt 19:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for its independent notability (proven by the box office) and since this is not the right place for this discussion--a delete and redirect is too drastic to propose for an article with at least some notability. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above; I find notable now since it was successful in the box office.--SuperSilver901 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Interested editors may want to comment on whether notability guideline on films should discuss box office rankings. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to pile-on here, but keep per meta:Eventualism and recommend withdraw. I'd defer deleting this for now; though the page doesn't technically pass notability as of now due to its lack of reviews, its box office success seems to imply that reviews will be forthcoming. I would assume that English reviews will also be most likely forthcoming upon an English release, which is inevitable due to the popularity of the manga series. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 00:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Food for thought, I did a Google News search and then a Google Translator with those sources....frankly, there really isn't anything there. I found a few hits on the name but that was typically in association with the company that made it. I couldn't find any actual reviews. Now, I only went through about a dozen links, and there were more there...if someone wants to actually go through more that would be good. Right now, it's not a good sign for the film. Notability for films, and the GNG are pretty clear. The onus is on the ones who want to keep this page to show that it is notable. We might not even have access to the any real sources to be able to have an English version of a Japanese subject. You have to remember that there are some subjects that don't have impacts outside of their domain (e.g., A Japanese movie getting no press in any English language country). That's why we have a Japanese Wikipedia, Where the article exists...with more information than here....though it isn't sourced so it's hard to see what can actually be used. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got a couple of points, so bear with me. First, here are some potential sources: An interview with voice actors is apparently planned. Maybe something can be gleaned from this by a Japanese speaker. A comment from the lead voice actor, etc. Sources are slowly finding their way online, and I am willing to bet that sources will surely appear by the time the series is licensed in the US and released. Second, if I didn't specify this clearly enough in my vote, I have no prejudice against this coming to AfD again if sources do not materialize within a few months since I'm personally not convinced that merely placing on the box office is enough for notability. Third, it must be noted that sources do not have to be in English. There is a Wikiproject that fights against systemic bias for a reason. Completely irrelevant random factoid: the soundtrack if anybody wants to incorporate it into the article. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 02:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - @NocturneNoir I'm in the same line than you. Box office alone isn't enough for notability but the series antecedents made it near obvious that evidences of notability will eventually pile up. Deleting it will just give some respite for certain editors. The movie is heavily supported by TV Tokyo so source checking is muddy. --KrebMarkt 06:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bignole Be careful wording your arguments as i interpreted one as 'It isn't translated in English so it doesn't deserve a place in the English Wikipedia' --KrebMarkt 06:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know what you actually read that gave you that interpretation, because nothing I said insinuated that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After Nihonjoe's reference in Animage, I see no reason to delete the article. eZio (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Barnstable High School. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstable High School Marching Band

The page doesn't use any reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Notability has been asserted several times in edit summaries by the primary editor, but the only sources currently used are a single primary source and a website that does nothing to establish notability; it only references a minor fact in the article. Reading the subheadings of WP:N under the requirement "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", it meets none of them. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a few articles that might be of note. [97], but they all seem to be behind a paywall. There has to be some independent coverage out there, I'm from the Cape and I remember growing up (late 90's early 2000's) that they were regularly winning competitions, going on tour, and were widely recognized as one of the top marching band programs in Massachusetts. I left a note to see if someone over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands could track down some print sources. They're certianly locally notable, but without the third party non-trivial sources to satisfy WP:N and WP:V, merging with Barnstable High School is probably the way to go. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 01:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Barnstable High School the essential features (we don't need the 'Staff' and 'Show Tunes' sections, for example). TerriersFan (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A high school marching band isn't notable except in extreme circumstances, which doesn't appear to be the case here. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That means it shouldn't have a separate article. You didn't address other possible ways to cover it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge really since nearly all high schools have a marching band and this one doesn't appear to be special. A redirect isn't necessary since it's not a likely search term. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really selective merge. The high school the band is related to is well-referenced and refreshingly notable for a change. Covering at leas the fact their marching band won a prize twice is a reasonable idea even when most of the article should be cut out. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The competition wins certainly make the band notable enough for a mention in the main article, but it doesn't warrant its own article. A merger is the best course of action. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Barnstable High School - as mentioned above, the prizes make the band notable within the context of the school's article, but a separate article is not appropriate. Radiopathy •talk• 23:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the school per Mgm. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and set redirect per Mgm. Makes good sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 05:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nano-Net

A speedy delete tag on the article's first incarnation -- a longer, spammy advertisement -- was declined because the admin felt it was "probably notable." A Google News search contradicts that opinion, with only three press releases on for-pay news wires [98]. It is peculiar for an international technology conference to receive no news coverage whatsoever. Even in this severely truncated version, the article does not meet WP:RS and WP:V standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to nanotechnology for lack of evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to badger you, but the Nano-Net article is about an obscure trade conference, while the nanotechnology article is about a prominent technology. There are other nanotechnology conferences that are well-documented: [99]. This one, sadly, is not, and I think the redirect would not be the correct course of action. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found many ghits for Nano(-)Net and all related to nanotechnology, so I feel a rd is reasonable as rds are cheap. I'm not endorsing its use to refer to a conference(s) in particular. JJL (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article in question is about a conference, not a dictionary term. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment once it's a rd, why would that matter? JJL (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a confernce about nano-networks. This is an academic, not an industrial conference, therefore it did not get much publicity on the web, as it is not a B2B conference with 500 participants. It is a non-profit event. Simple google search is not a criterium for judging the value of the conference. [[User:Publicilty (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)]] 9:52, 16 April 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publicilty (talk • contribs) [reply]

I have to disagree. Even by the standards of an international academic conference, this gathering has no demonstrated notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI agree that this is a small scale conference. Could you, please, indicate which criterea you use to define notability? Thank you.[[User:Publicilty (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)]] 15:01, 16 April 2009 (CET)[reply]

Basically, being a particularly important established conference series in the field. If an academic conference, importance can, among other things, be judged by the citations to the proceedings of the conference. Since the conference does not in fact plan to formally publish the papers, merely "make them available [100] in a database, the odds of that happening are very low. Incidentally, there have been several conferences--the article refers only to 2006. but I see links to 2007 and 2008. DGG (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of not being notable, as essentially admitted by the author of the article DGG (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 06:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Singapore relations

These two small nations have no bilateral relationship to speak of. THis stub doesn't have any sources or any assertion of notability. And I can find none reliable sources that could establish notability for this relationship. Delete. Bali ultimate (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the usual reasons. JJL (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two small countries on opposite sides of the world with no referenced connections? Non-notable in the utmost. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can not find any kind of source to suggest these countries have any notable relationship. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. — Jake Wartenberg 03:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is Ireland a small nation? Not everything can be the size of the US or Australia. That doesn't mean it's small... - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I may get it wrong, but this article doesn't seem to offer much hopes of being saved.--Aldux (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expanded the article a little (unfortunately due to time constraints, I could only add a few references) but now sourced. UNdoubtedly, there are other bilateral agreements out there. I would admit that the sources could be viewd as primary sources, being based on parliamentary debates and speeches during official visits of heads of states. If I was to make an observation on the various Country X- Country Y realtions articles, they might provide a home for items such as trade agreements, for example the open skies agreement I added, as these, while not exactly being hugely notable in their own right, are agreements between two sovereign governments and would fall into the relations category. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be pedantic, but the first three are indeed primary sources, and as for the fourth - well, is it really sufficient for an article? - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing wrong with being pedantic. I agree and acknowledged in my edit summary that the sources used could be considered primary sources, and as such, are only used to verify dates or events. For example, the report of the (then) Irish Prime Minister to the Irish Parliament on his meeting with the Singaporean Prime Minister [101] is only used to verify that it happened, and the source should be changed to a secondary source; similarly the Irish Foreign Minister's speech is only used to verify dates of the State Visits and the establishment of the embassy, and while again, a primary source, I don't think that it is necessarily an abuse of the source. But there is room for improvement. The open skies agreement is really just the one sample of a bilateral relationship, other than those that would exist on other levels, such as on European Union- Singapore level, but as an agreement signed by the governments, it does fall into the relationshoship area (I only had about 10 minutes to make a token search on all relationships, so again, there is room for improvement.)FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is simply no reason to delete this article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No good reason to keep it, either! --BlueSquadronRaven 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty argument: we actually need dispositive evidence of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to say about relations between these countries other than (typically) highly-staged visits. Non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arthur "Guitar Boogie" Smith. MBisanz ^talk 06:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Smith (music composer)

There appears to be a lack of notability. Many references, which look good on the surface, are references regarding non-relevant content. Also, the original title read like an ad or resume (Music composer and Creative Professional), which (coupled with the main contrib's history) lead me to suspect possible COI/original research. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is full of OR, much of it appearing to be false. If he had won awards, he'd certainly be in a few articles by reliable sources, but I have found none. Tim meh ! 23:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:29, 15 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 00:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Keep and cleanup. I'm having trouble verifying the awards, but the rest looks legit. Tons of news coverage, although his father is definitely more famous. Pburka (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, perhaps, Merge into his father's article? They seem to have collaborated significantly. Pburka (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Many of the references are about his more-famous father. Apart from one industry award in 1995, I can't see, at this moment, how subject meets WP:BIO. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arthur "Guitar Boogie" Smith: worth mentioning there, but not yet notable enough per WP:MUSIC for separate article. The news Ghits of value that I can find only mention him in connection with his father. Note that this article was speedied twice when posted as Clay Smith (composer; TV Producer). MuffledThud (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polyphobia

Dicdef at best, unverifiable neologism at worst. Vidkun (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my bad.--Vidkun (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Poly" literally means many, so the claim it refers to polyamory-something pretty much says that the phobia is only named after an indiscriminate part of the word it refers to which is utter bullocks. Compared with this page I'm confident it's a hoax. Someone might want to write about it, but this definitely needs to be deleted from the history. (PS. Pubmed came up empty and tried to redirect me to polyphagia, so I'm not that confident about the wrongdiagnosis.com link either) - Mgm|^(talk) 20:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Psychiatric dictionary has an entry as "fear of many things", as has a Springer press medical dictionary and some other science books as well (example). Google Books also turns up a few hits for the word as described in the article, but this is more "fringe" I think. I'm not sure how to proceed, perhaps transwiki to Wiktionary? Hekerui (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's nothing to transwiki to wiktionary - it's a neologism, attempting to assert that things similar to the characteristics of homophobia also occur in regards to polyamory. It may be true, but is it verifiable?--Vidkun (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:NEO as written; or, rewrite in terms of the recognized phobia mentioned above. JJL (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neo. Clearly.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sushen (Hinduism)

Not note-worthy, talks more about the Vishnu Sahasranama rather than about the article title. References NOT wp:RS. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up the article, wikified, added content and references. May keep tinkering with it. It is now a sort of disambiguation entry. Legitimate, I think, as a resource for someone who is curious about where the name comes from. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vishnu Sahasranama and add relevant content there to improve that article.TheRingess (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was more hoping someone who knew more than I do would come across it and expand to something like Vikram (name) or Govinda, other names included in the Vishnu Sahasranama but that also have many other uses. The problem with merging into Vishnu Sahasranama is that it is just one name of 1,000, and the other meanings do not belong. Not a strong feeling though. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also examples in the first section of List of titles and names of Krishna - not that similar examples make an argument for keeping an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:09, 7 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 00:03, 9 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 00:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but move to Sushen (name). If this article is solely about one of the 1000+ names of Vishnu, the subject is non-notable and can be covered in Vishnu sahasranama. But the article's present content (with slight reorganization and clean up), can serve as a stub for the name Sushen, since the write-up already provides introduction to the etymology and significance. My !vote is weak, only because I am conflicted about retaining wikipedia articles on first names in general, since they often are just poorly written lists of non/semi-notable persons. Abecedare (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 06:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Phillips

He was a reserve for a Wales friendly squad. Check out the Talk:Barrie_Phillips Anshuk (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable in any way. Bazj (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:34, 9 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 00:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. JohnCD (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 06:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WFL All-Time Team

Arbitrary list & original research (violates WP:NOR) mhking (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are references included in the article, teo of them. the stats, team, et.c are refernced . . . McDanny74 (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Slightly arbitary list, but there are references. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Seen worse. Could be inproved. Keep.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 03:20, 9 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, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply repeat . . . there are references and I agree it could be better, but it is new, it just needs some time and more editors. I think that it was too quickly added to the "speedily delete" and it seems there is a small majority if favor of keeping, although the sample is small.McDanny74 (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Lord Cornwallis weak keep.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to allow it to stay. It is kind of interesting and as has been mentionm, it is sourced.NEPatriotsfan2008 (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's fine. Fins Big Man (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more for Weak keepRussFrancisTE81 (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Washes the Cat

Non-notable snippet of oddball film that has turned up on YouTube and was very, very briefly seen on Jon Stewart and David Letterman's shows as a quickie sight gag (the untitled footage only runs a couple of seconds). A previous article on the same subject, Monkey washing a cat, has already been deleted. The article does not meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources on which to base an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:04, 15 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, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are exactly 3 Google hits on this phrase. Clearly not in common usage. eaolson (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete amusing clip but there's not enough content out there to justify an article. Hazir (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines subsidiaries

This is a content fork. The companies in this article are linked to at Singapore_Airlines#Structure within the table. The companies have their own articles at SIA Engineering Company, Singapore Airport Terminal Services, Singapore Flying College and SilkAir#Tradewinds_Tours_and_Travel_Private_Limited. Russavia ^Dialogue 04:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:24, 9 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 00:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 06:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Marshall

Unnotable voice actor. I cannot find any reliable sources about him on Google. The sources on the article are all wikis (or IMDB) and don't include any references either, most likely because there are none. Laurent (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 10 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 00:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Making 'conceptual contributions' is meaningless. As a voice-actor, the subject's notability is somewhat dubious. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets criteria for WP:Creative. This voice actor has most certainly provided significant contributions to notable productions. Untick (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In my opinion, he doesn't meet WP:Creative. Even if he indeed contributed to major games such as Donkey Kong Country of Killer Instinct, the article doesn't say what was the extent of his contribution. More importantly, there are no proofs he was actually involved with the design of these games. Laurent (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources makes this article wholly unverifiable, which is against WP:BLP. MLauba (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rama Claproth

MySpace artist. Does not appear to have recorded and released anything of note, nor been a member of a notable band. No awards or charts. JamesBurns (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete USA Google does not return any significant results, and no WP:RS are provided. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 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 00:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources, no significant coverage. TheClashFan (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Myspace pages are not independent, third-party, verifiable sources. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: This person gets two Google News hits, but they're in Bahasa Indonesia, which I can't read. I've run them through Google Translate, which suggests they're fairly trivial: one is a short piece predominantly about Claproth's father and mentions Rama only in passing, the other is a photo gallery about the band in which Claproth plays. (Though there're purportedly 3 matches related to that second item, they're actually all identical.) I don't think this is enough to constitute significant coverage in multiple sources, and therefore to establish notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The sources presented here appear to satisfy WP:N. Article creator notified of our conflict of interest guideline. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Set Zero

Reads like an advertisement; non-notable podcast without even a standard TLD. Also, was previously deleted and then recreated. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable podcast. JamesBurns (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one really good source that's a heck of a source and saw wide distribution in papers. It is solely on the topic, goes into detail and easily enough to build an article on without using primary sources. [102], which is also reprinted here [103],[104] and [105]. There is a weaker one: [106] (a RS that seems to meet WP:N's requirement) as well as the typical list of blogs and non-independent sources. Hobit (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nom was asked on the talk page to identify the "ad-like" issues with the article and didn't respond. I did respond and someone addressed the issue I raised quite nicely. Finally, I will note the article creater went to DrV to ask if he could recreate the article. Hobit (talk) 00:22, 11 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 00:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Source in article and those presented by Hobit are more than enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City of Paradise

Article about a proposed film, which says only that it is "in development", but on this website we read "what we are trying to do is raise finance for the 'Core Package' " and "First Phase is to raise $100,000k of the $10,000,000 budget through Investors." Fails WP:NFF which requires that a film has been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google News search reveals nothing close to a movie of this name, and neither does normal Google search. The production company doesn't even have its own article. Tim meh ! 23:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:30, 9 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 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not even convinced this exists, Google doesn't turn up anything except a facebook Japan entry looking for donations. No production company website, no film website, not even an IMDB entry. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 02:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a movie proposal, an idea, an inchoate project. Article fails by virtue of WP:CRYSTAL. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 06:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Samuel Ferré

Non-notable filmmaker. Although notability is asserted by the winning of a Film Festival award, it can be seen that this is not a major film festival, and that this film was one of MANY so honored at this particular festival. Links to IMDB do NOT assert notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:AFTER, IMDB links have now been removed and the article properly sourced. Its weak, but he has received an award at a (moderately important) festival and has particpated in another that won awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please refer to WP:NOTFILM for the guidelines of notability for films. The salient prerequisite here is a "major award" in some aspect of filmmaking. Being one of 48 films to receive recognition at a non-major film festival doesn't quite seem to meet this criterion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response that exact argument about being "one of many" can be made for every film festival. The salent point HAS been addressed in that it HAS won a major award. Not all film festivals are the highly commercialized and self-serving such as Academy Awards or Grammys, as some actually award quality and not simply popularity or consumer sales. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, all 48 films that were awarded this dubious award should merit Wikipedia pages, even though no one has ever heard of them outside of this festival. I may be mistaken here, but I think the criteria of WP:NOTFILM are a little more stringent than that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources that discuss the subject of a BLP in any depth at all? No blp.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how an award which a film festival (and not a particularly prominent one -- we're not talking about Cannes or Sundance here) gives to 48 films in the same category in the same year could be considered a "major award". At this level of film festival, I would tend to think that a film would have to at least win a "best in category"-type award to be considered to have received a "major award". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" His early film, which he disowned, is selling for 99 bucks at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Prusmack-Schroeder-Christian-Hutchinson-Stanton/dp/B000MX6ACW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1239959413&sr=8-2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.8.56 (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" hello guys, the information on his page is great, he doesn't plan to update it until after his feature Drive Forever is out at festivals. I just added the Mexico film fest and the DVD on Amazon because his page is still up for deletion. He's done alot more projects, he directed two features by the time he was 21, etc. Thanks alot guys, I appreciate it and wont take any more of your time. Have a great day. Nic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.8.56 (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banana Bungalow

Declining db-spam; taking to AfD. I'm getting a lot of RS ghits (such as Fodors and LonelyPlanet), so we could use an article on this company, but the tone is all wrong - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cleaned up the article by removing the large amount of text which was either advertising, or information about youth hostels in general. The official website lists only 5 currently open hostels, so I wonder if this is really a notable organisation. --David Edgar (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I stand by what I wrote on the talk page for the article. It made some highly dubious claims about how it has increased the popularity of hostels in the US and how it has changed the way hostels are run. No verification of either of these claims has been attempted despite an earlier RfD. The text as it stands could apply generally to backpacking hostels the world over so there is still nothing notable about these. The number of RS hits is a bit of a red herring. Any accommodation provider should garner numerous hits otherwise it's failing as a business.NtheP (talk) 18:23, 9 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 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article, in its present form, fails to meet WP:CORP. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell/find this is not a notable corporation. Yintaɳ 17:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 06:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David W. Wolkowsky

Unsourced and apparently non notable subject. A google search failed to throw up any RSs for them but there is enough of a claim to notability to make it worth discussing rather then speedy deleting Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 19:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claims for importance as running a notable venue in Key West seem sufficient, if they can be sourced.DGG (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Whioch is why this is at AFD not CSD and why I highlighted the lack of sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:01, 11 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 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: simple Google News search establishes that he does indeed run and own the notable Pier House. Here the NYT calls Wolkowsky Key West's "richest and busiest entrepreneur", a weighty quote from a good reliable source. I found 37 Google News hits, many in prominent news sources and some in national ones. Good enough for me. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
references need to be non-trivial - i.e. to discuss the subject in depth not in passing so we wouldnt rely on a source that in the sopace of a whole article mentions the subject in passing in one line. Im afraid these sources are trivial. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree none of the sources (that I can access for free anyway) discusses Wolkowsky in exhaustive depth, I think their number and breadth over time tends to establish notability. I'm inclined to see regular appearance in prominent sources over about 25 years as at least equivalent to a single, thorough-going profile.

Do you agree with DGG's comment above? I think the proof of Wolkowsky's management of Pier House exists, at least. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wolkowsky was a pall bearer at Tennessee Williams' funeral. That alone should qualify him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenbe (talk • contribs) 05:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Gonzonoir that the multitude of reliable sources available make this a notable biography, even with no exhaustive sources discovered yet. —Cleared as filed. 00:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 06:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Mitchell (author)

A biography of a living person (presumably) whose identity is the subject of speculation. The only source provided is the honorverse wiki, a clear failure of reliable sources. May be the creator of several out-of-print colouring books - but I don't see evidence that this is the same man. Fails WP:BIO. Victoriagirl (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose And what about the list of books he illustrated and the story he wrote? This is no mistake. The only thing I agree with is that it is unusual to have a line stating that something is in process of verification. :) Debresser (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see no evidence that the subject "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", as called for in WP:BIO. Indeed, I see no evidence that the co-author of a short story and the colouring book artist are the same individual. Concerning the issue of verification - which is an aside not mentioned in the nom - would to not be better to have such a thing accomplished before introducing the article? We are, after all dealing here with a WP:BLP. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 10 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 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to meet WP:BIO. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non-notable biography, unsourced; we discriminated against such content. Jack Merridew 07:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 07:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 07:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Bilal

Non-notable Crashoffer12345 (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only source is a dead link. Google search finds reference of the subject and Citipolipack limited to Wikipedia and a forum. Fails WP:BIO. Victoriagirl (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:24, 9 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 00:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The claim about his inclusion in Pakistan's most influential businessmen might have established notability were it verifiable, but I can't find anything to prove it. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information and Documenation Center on NATO in Republic of Moldova

Declining db-spam; websites promoting countries are complicated. No ghits, so taking to AfD. Btw, there are 40 European countries to choose from in the list of deletion discussions, and Moldova isn't on the list, so maybe they do need some promotion! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no news coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - governments are as able to spam as anyone else, and this fits the bill. By the way, Information and Documentation Center on NATO in Republic of Moldova looks like a duplicate. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Lawther

This is an article about a living musician who appears to fail WP:N, WP:MUSIC, and WP:BIO. His only full CD is self-published and is sold through his website. He has appeared in individual tracks of other CDs, but I can't find any professional criticism of his playing, or any in-depth discussion of him as a person, which makes him fail WP:N and WP:BIO. No suitable coverage can be found of him on google news (note that there's a football/soccer player that shares his name). The minimal coverage that he has recieved is trivial. Also note the possible conflict of interest with the article's creator: User:Bagpipediscs. Them From Space 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 10 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) 23:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It fails the general notability guideline, and almost no reliable sources say anything about this guy. His recording isn't even sold on sites such as amazon.com, walmart.com, etc. Tim meh ! 02:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to meet WP:MUSIC and bearing a stagnant whiff of WP:VSCA. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rebirth (Lil Wayne album). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Not Human

Sources are provided on the main album page that the song will be featured on the album. However, there are no sources confirming or even suggesting the release of this song as a single. Redirect/Delete. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 01:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC) (procedural completion of AfD - My opinion is Neutral) Tevildo (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album page. WP:MUSIC states: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article." The source on the album article says it is a "rumored single". Wikipedia doesn't post rumors. The song will become notable if it becomes a single, charts, and/or receives some attention from reliable sources. Tim meh ! 02:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability yet to be established, no charts, no awards, no covers, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Redirect to parent article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent article, because it's a likely search term. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: same as everyone else: not notable by itself, but a likely search term. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 20:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rebirth (Lil Wayne album). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

Pings Xiao and Hsiao P'ing-shih

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.