Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 11

< 10 July	12 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 19:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boanthropy II

No reliabe sources Lindert (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this article for deletion because I cannot find any reliable sources that confirm the existance of the disease called 'boanthropy'. It has been deleted before, but it was created again without providing any sources by an unregistered user. I think it is a hoax or at best it could be based on anecdotical accounts. Boanthropy, like the name suggests, is said to be a mental disorder causing the victim to think they are a cow.

A google search I did came up only with the definition of the word (like in this article), often associated with the madness of king Nebuchadnezzar II, as described in the book of Daniel. But I could not find any details on the disease, and I found no information on it on medical or psychological websites.

A google scholar search showed only results that associated the word either with Nebuchadnezzar or with were-wolves. For example, the 'Book of Werewolves' says the following (concerning humans taking the form or the mind of animals): "Among the ancients this kind of insanity went by the names of Lycanthropy, Kuanthropy or Boanthropy, because those afflicted with it believed themselves to be turned into wolves, dogs or cows." I have also not found any sources of Lycanthropy or Kuanthropy being a true medical condition.

Obviously, the Book of Daniel cannot be the sole source for this disease, because it merely describes the story of one man, never attributing his madness to a mental disorder, but to the punishment of God.

Apart from this book of werewolves, the word 'boanthropy' was apparently used in 'The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee', although in the discussion page it is mentioned that some words on that show are fictious. It is also used in this blog, but that appears to be a satirical piece.

Considering that this article was created in 2005 and still it has zero references, I think there is no reason to keep it. As far as I know, there exists not a single medical, psychological or otherwise scholarly article that describes the disease, and no cases are known from the last few millenia. Lindert (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly it is not a real disease but it might fall into the category of "diseases" imagined to exist in the unscientific past. If so, then the onus is on the authors to demonstrate that it is notable in that regard and that more than can be written about it than just its definition. Clearly I am not the first to observe that a Google search is not at all encouraging. The word is also in Wiktionary but not referenced to anything other than the Bible, which doesn't actually use the word. It is not in the OED at all, which you would expect if it had any real history. Most of the Google hits seem to refer back either to Wikipedia/Wiktionary or to the "Spelling Bee" competition. I have a nasty, although unprovable, suspicion that the Spelling Bee quiz setters may have got it from us via the "Random entry" button on Wiktionary. In short, this word may have what little currency it has mainly because we give credence to it. If so, that is a bad thing. The Wiktionary entry needs looking at too. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that such a disease exists, let alone that it has reliable sources. As Lindert says, if you believe the Daniel account, you reject this idea, because the text says nothing about a disease. If we were to have an article about that passage, the deletion situation would be different (although it would probably still be nonnotable), but this isn't it. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Orangemike under WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde vanbarrel

Biography presenting no evidence of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Speedy deletion declined twice, so bringing it here. Astronaut (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Pure vanispamcruftisement created by an editor (Arkonian (talk · contribs)) with self-proclaimed WP:COI issues, i.e., "I was assigned to create an article for my employers , clyde vanbarrel and kyle vanbarrel" … their talkpage documents their recreation of these NN articles. Happy Editing! — 138.88.7.48 (talk · contribs) _{05:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Speedy delete, no proof of notability, no references supplied, no notability can be found, creator admitted at WP:EAR that she/he is an employee who had been asked to create article , i.e. paid editor. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this, no reason to have declined the speedy in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. the wub "?!" 23:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hicks

Non-notable YouTube series, no claims of notability, no sourcing. My speedy deletion tag was removed by an anon who is making a lot of edits to the article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victory (DJ Khaled album)

Delete & Merge: ~~Album and related single does not exist, pure speculation.~~ I did some digging and found out that he's working on the album and it exists, it seem somebody deleted it from the article. Nevertheless, there are no confirmed guests, no confirmed producers, no confirmed tracklisting or singles. Right now most of what's on the article is pure speculation and I feel that it should be deleted under WP:NALBUMS, merged with DJ Khaled and recreated as a separate article when the necessary information becomes available. --Taylor Karras (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:32, 11 July 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, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. It doesn't matter if he is working on the album of not. As an unreleased album that has not generated sufficient 3rd party coverage, it fails WP:NALBUM and the song, which hasn't charted, fails WP:NSONGS. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD G3) by TexasAndroid. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 17:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama Dance

Previously deleted, unsourced, unfindable, and likely the product of someone's imagination as is much of the vandalism that plagues other (genuine) articles of the series such as Total Drama Island, Total Drama Action and Total Drama, The Musical. BlueSquadronRaven 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Romero

Autobiography of an actor with only one starring film role. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 21:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. This article is also a copyvio of his IMDB biography. Iowateen (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy back to User:Aromero14 with an explanation about COI. One minor and one major film role and a handful of production assistant credits do not make a notability. However, he does have some decent coverage for Powder Blue [1], [2], so more may be in the offing. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 19:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe

Currently the article is a WP:CFORK, perhaps swinging from one POV to another over the long term. Attempts to find neutral reliable sources have failed, even concerning the basic definition of the subject matter. This is apparently because the subject matter is WP:OC when compared to real scientific discussion, which does not make clear consistent distinctions about "sub Saharan genes" as we find in popular debate on internet forums (and amongst Wikipedians sometimes!) |--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not look at it a few months ago it is less one-sided now the only True Pov and OR were from the Wopon-sock machine. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand, as we both do, that you are now happy to be able to put in un-sourced statements, at least for a time, implying that Ethiopia's genetic diversity is a mixture between caucasians and negroids. The problem is that this is not exactly what people who know anything about this subject would call "neutral". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for letting you add bloody original research. I changed it so there is no more original research in that area and I think that it would be nice to let people dicide if that quote says Ethiopia's genetic diversity is a mixture between caucasians and negroids It would be nice if you could find one genetic site that said Ethiopians has no caucasion admixture since you seem so convinced that it does not The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that mainstream literature does not contain such statements, or even debate in such terms. How can people be asked to find quotes they say do not exist? Please read WP:PROVEIT. I think your posting here says a lot about what is wrong with this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strike me as being an essay. If someone wants to include some of it in a broader topic that might be okay. But this seems to be an argument and not encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep not more of an argument then most articles if you exclude the Wapon socks.The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth pointing out for the sake of completeness that the talkpage shows that there are more than this user who who think the article would be worth keeping if were not for perceived Afrocentrists who keep wanting their say (this user is referring to User:Muntuwandi (AKA Wapondaponda). I'd say this shows the problem of the article as well as anything. It seems to be unable to avoid edit wars between sides who think (due to the loose nature of the subject matter) that they have a chance of "winning".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explained above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Socking has nothing to do with the the fact that this entry serves no good function. It covers a subject matter which should be dealt with more briefly as part of the more general Genetic history of Europe entry.PelleSmith (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A good reason to delete the article and redirect content to Genetic history of Europe is that GHOE has a much wider audience and the content can achieve more scrutiny. However, I think this is a temporary solution, because there is a high probability that someone will recreate this article when the next Antonio Arnaiz-Villena controversy appears. Though recently some editors have started to clean up GHOE, it also suffers from the some of the same problems as this article, in that there is no specific discipline entitled "genetic history of Europe". Wapondaponda (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basic problem. Someone please explain what material in this article is worth saving? (I have asked this before but no one wants to answer.) I would suggest that the real debate in the scientific literature which is logically prior to the internet stupidity reflected in this article is concerning the meaning of PCA analysis and HUMAN genetic diversity as well as the number and timing of migrations out of Africa. There are no good Wikipedia articles on these things, and science is not yet up to it. Let Wikipedians stick to the facts and not try to second guess the future.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some good sources in the article. At present, the problem seems to be politicizing the article, rather than letting the content speak for itself. It is possible, for instance, to simply list all studies that have documented "African admixture" and simply keep the article in list format. This avoids issues of original research and synthesis claims, since it would just be a list. I do think, the Sub-Saharan genetic component in Europe is significant enough to warrant a discussion, and enough individual studies have been conducted to confirm this. For example, the potential presence of African genes that confer resistance to Malaria is of significant Medical importance in Mediterranean regions. However, nobody has yet conducted a comprehensive analysis of gene flow between Africa and Europe to make it a well established scientific discipline. If users can approach this article with an open mind, rather than with preconceived notions that there is either no African admixture or that there is plenty of African admixture, and let the data speak for itself, I think it can be a very important article about human history. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal would effectively ignore one of the biggest problems of the article by ignoring the problem of defining the subject matter, which people keep insisting is NOT about all African admixture, but only "sub Saharan" African. So in effect you'd need a new article, and it would not be about the same things as the present article, at least not according to most of the editors working on it. (I personally do not think there is enough clear consensus in mainstream science to divide up Africa -- NB pre-historic Africa and its migrations -- on a simple north/south basis as implied by the present title of this article. To the extent that there are some sharp genetic clines somewhere to the south of the Sahara, these all appear to be post Holocene to me, caused by relatively recent migrations of early pastoralists and iron age farmers from the direction of the Sahara itself. Language families show the same pattern. Y Haplogroup E for example dominates sub Saharan Africa, but some editors on Wikipedia even think it might have originated in Asia! The direction of debate on the article talkpage implies we have to treat Nubians and Beja as coming from different parts of Africa. It leads to paradoxes.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Genetic history of Europe. Jingby (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - buried in the article is one quote on why it doesn't make sense to rely on this information to make grand typological claims. Yet the preponderance of otherwise unexplained data gives the impression that that is indeed its purpose. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Genetic history of Europe. What is actually the basis of this article. Continents don't migrate people(s) do. The genetic makeup after admixture is determined by the peoples that migrated, not the region they come from, more so true for expansive regions such as Subsaharan Africa, the !Kung live in SSA, have they migrated into Europe? Direct migration from SSA into Europe seems implausible, but serial asymmetric migrations are possible, this often results in admixture as people move, and represents a makeup of peoples at the continental boundaries. In addition, why bring up The Arnaiz-Villena controversy. I looked at 100s of HLA haplotypes from the greeks and compared them with other peoples. The greeks have a trace of markers I consider to be African of recent origin, the Greeks have a great number of haplotypes identical to Italians and the frequency of many of these haplotypes are comparable, both fit well into the central mediterranean cluster. A better pagename would be Genetic influences of Africa in Europeans and then describe the various sources of migrants. THere are a number of alleles that support various connections with Africa HLA-B81, HLA-B78, HLA-B73, HLA-B53, HLA-B47, HLA-B41, etc however this is not the point. There is a general problem with many of the articles (particularly Y-DNA) that overemphasize aspects that are subject to wide variation. It is certainly possible that negroid Africans created colonies in the Aegean or migrated as traders, part of mate exchanges, etc. Where is the supporting morphological and archaeological evidence for any of this stuff. Without HLA haplotypes (A-V uses alleles), HLA haplotypes, particular long haplotypes are like a fingerprint but even so it is all but impossible to date migrations, and even with haplotypes there are lots of problems. Basically what is missing is evidence for who-specifically and when. Some one said Someone please explain what material in this article is worth saving?, IMHO 90-95% of the material could be deleted and merged. Also who is monitoring sock puppets in this discussion.PB666 ^yap 22:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of Genetic influences of Africa in Europe. However the reason this article was created was to differentiate Sub-Saharan African influences from North AFrican influences. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear I see no big conflict between the ideas of merge and delete for this article. Whatever is worth keeping in this article, if anything, seems better handled elsewhere. No one has pointed to anything in it which is really needing to be handled in a special article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the side of Andrew Lancaster's rationale--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability of subject not established. Article also has the problem that the introduction gives two equal but opposite points of view, but only covers a single point of view, basically it looks like a pov-fork. Alun (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV-fork. Current content is unacceptable. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete take your pick, WP:HOAX, vandalism, WP:SNOW. Reso lute 22:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call of duty 9

Appears a little early to be speculating on this game, given no sources are available. The name of the game isn't actually clear yet, let alone the content. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's fairly obvious it's a hoax. A cursory check on google doesn't yield anything. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is vandalism check out the name of main character 'Lt.Wann Kerr' of the Chinese army. Since changed by the article creator. BigDunc 21:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Given that the most recent edition was Call of Duty 5: World at War, speculating on 9 is jumping the gun a little (no pun intended!) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 21:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Retarded. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Deville (Talk) 23:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Weeks (band)

Unremarkable/Non-notable band. Article does not show the importance or significance of the band. Band has 1 album to its credit, only source is an album review in Rolling Stone which doesn't notability a band make as many no-hit wonders have had reviews in Rolling Stone. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question I'm far from a CSD expert, but couldn't this be speedily deleted under criterion A7? Timmeh 23:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I CSD tagged it but it was removed by someone else. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I see why SoWhy declined it. It claims coverage in reliable sources because it cites a source. Tim meh 13:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have expanded the article and I think there's just about enough there now to be kept.--Michig (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 12:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are reliable sources cited now, so it passes WP:N. Good work, Michig! Tim meh 13:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ronnotel (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ronnotel, I don't think this is the place to be advertising a band's music. We're supposed to be discussing whether or not the article merits inclusion. Save friendly unrelated chat for user talk pages, please. Tim meh 01:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Simple English Wikipedia

This subject, while notable within the project, does not merit inclusion based on our notability requirements set out in WP:WEB. At best, it could be mentioned somewhere else, such as Wikipedia. لenna vecia 19:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias. I tried to expand this article a couple months ago, and there's really only one secondary source to speak of. Perhaps it would be better to merge a few sentences into English Wikipedia, but I think redirecting is a good option. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now per Rankiri's sources (not sure how he found them, but he did, and I'm now confident the site meets notability requirements). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either List of Wikipedias or Wikipedia - definitely not worthy of a separate article. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ per above comments. Seems like they said all I was gonna say. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 19:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I apologise for doing this out of process originally. Based on the article's state and age, I didn't think there was much of a question. But I suppose there's also the issue of where to redirect it to - I had originally pointed it to English Wikipedia, thinking we could give it a sentence there. List of Wikipedias works too, if that's what others agree on. Recognizance (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: e.g. Bulgarian Wikipedia and Croatian Wikipedia have both their own articles here. Both articles have only sources related to the Wikimedia foundation. Should this articles become redirects, too, if Simple English Wikipedia becomes a redirect, shouldn't they? --Barras (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Those articles may deserve to be handled the same way this one is; or alternately maybe they shouldn't because sources exist for those articles that just have not been cited yet. Either way, such discussion shouldn't really happen here. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 20:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jennavecia PeterSymonds (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject seems to pass WP:GNG with ease.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/wikipedia.web20

Google Books

http://books.google.com/books?id=S7xi5jcSp6EC&pg=PA544&dq=%22simple+english+wikipedia%22

Google Scholar

http://sunschlichter0.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/persons/kochm/ecscw2007ws/paper-denbesten.pdf

http://www.ethiqa.com/hephaistos/simplewikiDenBestenDalle.pdf

http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Workshops/2008/WS-08-15/WS08-15-008.pdf

http://www.sftw.umac.mo/~robertb/publications/WikiSym2008/18500125.pdf

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.2354.pdf

"Keep it Simple: A Companion for Simple Wikipedia?", Industry & Innovation, Matthijs Den Besten; Jean-Michel Dalle, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 169-178 (abstract)

"One Encyclopedia Per Child (OEPC) in Simple English", Kennedy, I. (2006), In T. Reeves & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006 (pp. 77-82) (abstract) — Rankiri (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not usable, but I rather like this one and the xckd cartoon it links. Artw (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of many Wikipedia pages here when it comes to them being covered on this site. This page is notable in the way that WikiCommons is notable. I find it absurd that people will target a page because it can't be expanded or doesn't seem notable. I know that this is unlikely to happen, but what would those who use that project think of this. This page helps to denote the notability of a project here, and it probably has encouraged many editors to the project. I really think that this page will probably end up being recreated in due time, once people realize their mistake. Also note that there is a template for each Wikipedia language project at the bottom of the page. I haven't checked out every link, but I feel that it's safe to assume that this means that there is one page for every project out there, as they are linked to the template. Just because we don't all edit this project, doesn't mean that it isn't important. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as some comments on the talk page for the article describe people critical of Simple English Wikipedia mistaking that page for a discussion of the project itself, you seem to be missing the point of this and trying to martyr the project. This is about whether the page meets notability guidelines and, if so, how best to present the information. In my opinion, this would be more appropriate within the context of a larger discussion about various editions and usability of Wikipedia. This would be far more useful than an independent perma-stub. The people who voted to redirect it to List of Wikipedias are more on the side of deleting the article outright, but no one is attacking Simple English Wikipedia project. Additionally, notability guidelines apply to all articles, so how much of a hypothetical boost its existence would give to a project is irrelevant in this case. Recognizance (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the people who opted for the redirect mostly agreed with لennavecia's claims on non-notability. As most of you know, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a standalone article. Since new sources were added, I'd appreciate if you could look at the Google results and reevaluate your earlier conclusions. Thanks. — Rankiri (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed look at them, and I appreciate your effort. But as Cnilep said below, I remain convinced this information would be better presented elsewhere. If a coherent, properly sourced article is written, I might change my mind - but for now my vote stands. Recognizance (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Struck thru prior vote; per sources provided by Rankiri above, this shows enough reliable source material is clearly availible to support an seperate article. Thanks for finding those sources. Good catch. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily enough sources for notability, regardless oif decisions about other WPs. DGG (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: This site is not sufficiently notable for its own page. It deserves a brief paragraph in a broader article. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I moved this to Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia years ago and that's where it ought to have stayed. Angela . 06:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that was years ago. Since then, seWP has grown and has attracted attention from the media. Certainly, Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia is not where it should stay. Even a place at the list of WPs would be acceptable. Regards, Pmlin editor 07:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by Rankiri which establish notability. Davewild (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Wikipedia's, specially those containing above 50,000 articles are generally notable. Also, there are several sources to establish notability. Pmlin editor 07:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to either Wikipedia or List of Wikipedias. I thank Rankiri for finding additional sources related to the topic, but note that most of those sources are not really on point. Most of the papers seem to be work in computer science using Simple English Wikipedia as a data set, or work in other fields mentioning SEWP in some non-essential way. Two exceptions are Besten and Dalle (2008) and the piece from The Guardian already cited on the page. I don't think this quite rises to the required level of notability. Cnilep (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, most of these sources make numerous scientific observations of SEWP and its content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. — Rankiri (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that using SE Wikipedia as a data set is pretty notable. Powers ^T 12:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things get used as data sources (see e.g. Linguistic Data Consortium). Some of these are notable in their own right, others are not. Cnilep (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more than enough sources. Powers ^T 12:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely has received a lot of coverage in independent sources. --Roaring Siren (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable 'pedia with reliable sources and an original concept. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep - just silly. Artw (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No sources have been added. Just to clarify. Sources have been found, but the article still has a single independent source. Maybe the ARS could spend a little less time tagging everything and a little more time actually working on articles. Lara 19:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rankiri's sources. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade that to Strong Keep per Artw's work and the previous AfD which included this article. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - do we actually have any evidence that this has been 'inappropriately canvassed off-wiki' per the notice added by MZMcBride above? Actually should that not just be a regular comment anyway? Artw (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I removed the notice template since no evidence has been provided by MZMcBride. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (should be added earlier)[reply]

Canvassing was witnessed in IRC. Lara 03:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep About two years ago there's a AfD discussion for all individual languages' Wikipedia article, and the clear consensus then is keep. This edition of Wikipedia already has more than 50000 articles and there are several external sources about it. I see no reason to delete it just because there's an article about the same language (the two are much different, however). --98.154.26.247 (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (should be added earlier)[reply]
Strong Keep through sources shown available by User:Rankiri and per the improvements by User:Artw that have addressed concerns over the topic meeting WP:GNG. Always nice to see an article improved during an AfD. Even though AfD is not intended to force WP:Cleanup, Kudos to all who have worked to improve the article and the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I stumbled on this discussion when I was linking to the article from another discussion but I also came to the article to find out what the parameters of the English used in the Simple English Wikipedia are. This is information that would not appear in List of Wikipedias if this article was merged. The information could appear at English Wikipedia if this article were merged there but that really is a different topic. While these reasons alone might not be enough to warrant retention of the article, citations given by others above seem to suffice. — AjaxSmack 00:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator [3]. the wub "?!" 21:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nocturnal Breed

Metal band without notability, basically. No record deal with a notable label (and no chart listings, since they're a metal band...), and no significant coverage in reliable sources. All I can find is a two hits on www.nrk.no, one a paragraph in English and the other half a paragraph in Norwegian, besides a few mentions of show dates in various places. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the fact that Silenoz and Stian Arnesen are former members. This satisfies WP:BAND criterion 6 - "an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". the wub "?!" 23:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. I hadn't seen that. If this is kept, we have another eternal stub on our servers. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 for album reviews here, here, here, here, and here, and squeezes through C5 for multiple releases on Hammerheart Records. We'll "have another eternal stub on our servers"....so what???? Last time I looked Wikipedia didn't have a deadline nor will it ever be finished. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 11:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Esradekan, I'm a great admirer of your work in the music department--but one question mark is enough. ;) I understand your remarks perfectly well, thanks. However, as far as I understand, none of the references you give are from reliable sources--and your word choice, "squeezes by," is telling. I have not found a single review in what might be called reliable sources, or I would have never nominated this. Now, if the consensus is that having some former, notable band members, two releases on a moderately notable label, and a couple of reviews on metal sites is enough, then I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firstly, the squeezes through comment is on WP:Music#C5, not the rest of it. And secondly, may I ask what is your definition of a reliable source? Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 15:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure--I get it from WP:RS. I could go on at length about how the sites mentioned above don't seem to have much editorial oversight, their editorial standards are impossible to gauge, much if not all of their content seems to be user-submitted, et cetera, but I don't think I need to argue extensively that the above don't qualify as reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Borderline, but a couple of records on Hammerheart just edges through WP:MUSIC. Struggling to find many other sources however, and note that not a single one mentioned above is in a reliable source. Nothing wrong with stubs, though. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD A7) by KillerChihuahua. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 17:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Hour Rules

Article does not indicate how book is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. I've looked for reviews of the book and cannot find any in Google (searching "Rush Hour Rules" Powell), only blog mentions and seller's sites. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 19:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

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

The result was keep. Deville (Talk) 23:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of male performers in gay porn films

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 4. Neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a verified, fairly comprehensive, encylopedic list. Seems like the main reasons for deleting it boil down to objecting to the existence of gay porn, or even gay people. T-bonham (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable list, if someone would bother to ensure that WP:PORN notability is used to maintain people on the list, then there is no reason the concept of this list is not up to Wikipedia standards. It is certainly no different than any "List of <insert job title here>" lists at Wikipedia. If the content is a problem, then it needs to be cleaned up; but this is not a deletion issue. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 19:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List has come a long way from having zero sources to just about complete sourcing in a week's time. It satisfies my deletion rationale concerns (see the 3rd nomination where I nominated it for deletion) regarding sourcing and BLP vio. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- As long as its maintained (IE with verified accurate information), there's no problems, policy wise, with this list. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provided it is maintained at somewhere near its current level of sourcing. The version at the beginning of the current AfD-DRV-AfD cycle was terribly unsourced, but sufficient improvements have been made to change my mind. I honestly believe BLP-vulnerable pages like this are likely to be more trouble than they are worth - but provided it is well-watchlisted only used to provide sourced links to WP:PORNBIO-notability standards then it is a useful navigational tool and I do not have a problem with it. ~ mazca ^talk 23:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, it wasn't "terribly unsourced", it had no sources as the list was being tied only to articles that existed already and those articles had to have the sourcing in tact. Obviously that wasn't terribly realistic. Now this is looking more like a list article than just a collection of names. -- Banjeboi 00:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. As I stated in the last AfD and the subsequent DrV these are basic clean-up issues. I have yet to find any BLP violations which was bandied as a concern. I will continue sourcing with the award winners which has been filling in gaps of coverage, there is cross-referencing to be done as well as ensuring links go to the right person or become disambiguated as porn actors. -- Banjeboi 00:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How on earth do you even suggest snow keep when the one that just closed was no consensus? I know that gay issues are your pet project, but this seems a little biased when the other one was pretty split. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Snow keep" is based on this AfD. Gay issues are not my pet project but it's an area I feel many editors are prejudiced against for a variety of reasons. All the more important that we present accurate, sourced and balanced information. -- Banjeboi 03:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, and you suggested "snow" after 4 !votes. You don't think that is a little premature? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:Snow, at its core is about sending something through a process that is quite unlikely to occur; IMHO, there isn't a "Snow" chance of this list being deleted. Let's see what others have to say. -- Banjeboi 08:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm quite certain that I can predict some editors that will swoop in to rescue it. And many of those who think it should be deleted will simply throw up their hands and walk away. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly "swooped" in but certainly am rescuing it. I'm concerned, don't you feel improving articles is what we're here to do? If someone feels this should still be deleted then they should make their opinion known and base in it policy. Maybe everyone else here is missing something. -- Banjeboi 19:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per above !votes. Iowateen (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That a named person is notable for being a pornographic actor and the evidence is sufficient to justify a Wikipedia article, makes all BLP considerations to be ones applying to the original articles, not this one. DGG (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is already a Category:People appearing in gay pornography, so this list is actually fairly redundant. Yes, I knwo that doesn't prohibit it, but the redundancy seems to make this article irrelevent. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Redundant? There are dozens of entries here which are notable gay porn actors who have no article ergo are not in any categories. This is why we have both lists and categories; they should compliment each other. -- Banjeboi 01:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent rescue by Benjiboi. My last delete rationale was based on BLP concerns and these has been cleaned up thoroughly. Them From Space 05:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close . Not an AfD. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Figureskatingfan/Sesame Street history

Sandbox no longer needed, thanks; finished using it to draft re-write of article. Christine (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK Criteria #5 Protonk (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009 cyber attacks

news-hype, non-notable, unencyclopeadic Casimirpo (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing here so far that I have not read in accredited newspapers such as the NYT and FT. It's been speculated in mainstream media that NK is behind the attacks, and there is definitely an ongoing attack. This would hardly be the first time Wikipedia had an article about an event that were currently unfolding. As long as the heading states that, there is nothing wrong with it. It is most definitely worth chronicalling cyber attacks, such as the recent attack against Latvia that appeared to originate inside Russia. And how is it any better to write about an event a month later than to do so as it happens? Particularly since the article can obviously be edited at a later date to remove factually erroneous info. Grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JacksonCain (talk • contribs) 19:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems well-sourced and notable to me. -- Yekrats (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems quite encyclopedic to me, and whether the attack originated in North Korea or not it was certainly intended to look like it was from North Korea, and is thus notable as part of the ongoing escalation of unfriendliness between North Korea and the rest of the world. Also: what Yekrats said. Cerebellum (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I think creation of this page was premature and violates WP:NOTNEWS. Although it may turn out that these attacks are notable in the long-run, it's too early to know this and I see no evidence of notability yet. What is lost by waiting a few months before writing an article? What if there are more attacks in August? In September? Then the title and organization of this topic will be inaccurate. I also find no evidence that these attacks are notable as a topic in and of themselves. There has been pretty much steady coverage of a variety of cyber attacks over the past several years and I have seen nothing that makes this particular one stand out. See this search: [4]. Also, searching in google for the phrase "July 2009 cyber attacks" on google yields only hits that are mirroring or referencing this article. Also see this search: [5]. The coverage is all within a 3 day time-window. Someone jumped the gun here and I say to delete both because I see no evidence of notability as a topic in and of itself, and also in order to discourage this sort of activity in the future. Cazort (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: This article has been created as part of Wikipedia's In The News project, and it is quite common for them to write about recent events. That's the point of the "In the news" section. The notability would be quite clear if you actually bothered to read the sources. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading about this a lot in the news. I'm not questioning the notability of the content, I'm questioning the notability of this as a topic in and of itself. I very strongly feel that this is not the best way to organize this sort of material. I also can point out this search: [6] which shows that concerns over hacking from China and North Korea have been concerns for a long period of time...it's not just this one event. I think that the material would be more meaningful if it existed in a broader context. If this attack proves notable in the long run, then and only then should it have its own page. Cazort (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Despite it's encyclopedic value, this event seems more like media fearcruft than an actual threat. Such threat would be worth inclusion, if it existed. RUL3R^*flaming|_*vandalism 17:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable, if not as significant as the media would have us think. What would be lost by waiting a few months? The time and effort of the people who wrote the article, obviously. Bryce (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a significant event. Obviously it wasn't completely made up. Future revisions to the article (or even a name change/move) based on new information are always welcome. There is no reason to remove the article now. Bonus Onus (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is worth noting that the article is linked from the Main Page. RUL3R^*flaming|_*vandalism 17:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The possibility of future attacks and the extent of the current ones is quite notable, IMHO. Not an actual threat? No, nobody's going to die (probably) but it's impacting the public flow of information... Mononomic (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable; has numerous articles and references from mainstream media, as well as coverage from major antimalware vendors. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I recommend the nominator reads the sources in the article, and does a preliminary search of http://news.google.co.uk/news/more?pz=1&ned=uk&cf=all&ncl=dlxzPfrJR-gkQuMhGUTSMJ4HVxIiM Google, before nominating articles which are linked to the main page and claiming they are non-notable. As for the non-encyclopaedic claim, this is an article in progress due to it's recent nature. Significant changes could well happen, and we should give it due time to develop. Despite the WP:NOTNEWS accusation, I feel this is worthy of inclusion due to the somewhat hostile nature of the Korean peninsula in current times, particularly with North Korea's feelings towards the U.S. and South Korea (who were the victims of these attacks). Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 18:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regardless about whether it should be kept or deleted, it's hardly notable to be placed ITN. — D. Wo. 19:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable mainstream coverage establishing notability. May be issues if there are other notable attacks after July 2009. Esowteric | Talk 19:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is, in all probability, just some low-level crook trying and succeeding to get attention, and we're certainly not going to cover every time someone does that. Belgium EO (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's well sourced, has been covered in a variety of fora/media and meets notability requirements. This is not simply news, as the content differs substantially from the news reports in the press. Suspicions about what this is "in all probability" are totally irrelevant to this discussion as well as OR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not seem to be enough notable information to continue to allow this article. The article attempts to make lengthy two items that could be better placed into their appropriate subject matter. I would recommend placing the North Korean connection into the Foreign relations of North Korea article (once founded) and moving the DDoS information into the DDoS Incidents section. Finally, the In the News section should have linked to a WikiNews article instead of a new Wikipedia article. Inomyabcs (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Well, I think that the information is useful to a certain extent, but the reliability of the article (not the information itself) is somewhat questionable.-- Vintei Talk 19:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have already established the notability of this event and it has received significant coverage from major news sources. 71.89.55.123 (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And in view of the overwhelming support for a keep I propose to do this speedily. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable, well-sourced, and more information should be forthcoming as the story unfolds. And I second Debresser. Make it a speedy keep.--MicahBrwn (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is actually current discussion on various security lists on the fact that these "cyber attacks" as the media likes to call them are over-hyped. Ref [7]. I feel this falls into the category of WP:NOTNEWS. If it's decided to be kept, I strongly encourage that this type of information also make its way into the article for NPOV. (However, voting delete because I don't think that the event is notable.) --Mpdelbuono (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the sentiment there, I don't think that source you gave qualifies as a reliable source. I suspect over time, more commentary will surface though that is in more reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Several strong reasons to keep. First of all, this is definitely notable by now. It's mentioned in the ITN and I can see reports in newspapers and media. Second, there are already other languages' editions on this articles, some articles in Wikipedia don't even have other language's edition. Although this article is a little bit short doesn't mean we have to delete it. As I said before in the AfD of 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia, I see no reason to delete this article. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep it at least until it is no longer a current event.Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not at all a valid rationale for keeping an article on Wikipedia. This is not Wikinews. --LjL (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insignificant event that will not be remembered even next week. Can be rewritten if it turns out to be a 9/11 and 3,000 people die. Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is useful information for people studying such problems, and may prove to be of some importance in the future, especially for researchers. 24.22.15.77 (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, accusations of cyberterrorism, even if proven false make this notableComhreir (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, way overblown hype. Nothing to see here folks, move along... --Manway (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my comments above. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 19:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher McLinden

Non-notable actor. Oscarthecat (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A7. Completely non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wouldn't call it a speedy delete because of his one role in a notable film, but it still fails to meet WP:ENT, as per no significant finding on IMDB or Google. I can't find any significant contribution to the acting profession other than some stage work and one appearance in a film (as shown on the IMDB page). WP:ENT states that multiple notable film roles are indications of notability, and I'm afraid I fail to see that in this case. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 18:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What role in a notable film? He is listed in one film that I'm having difficulty calling it notable. It won two "awards", the "Golden Trailer" and the "Heineken Red Star Award". Barely noticed at the box office. Is there a different film I'm missing? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nah you're right actually, looking back at WP:NF I couldn't class it at notable. But it known to a wider audience than most films that come through AfD. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 12:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Let's ignore the nearly non-existant IMDB credits and look at coverage for his stage work. There may be enough there with some work to flesh out the BLP [8]. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't overlook stage work in my assessment, and although he's had multiple roles in theatre, what's not so clear is whether or not these roles/plays were notable. Most of them I would dare to say no because I can't find any sources on his performance, thus meaning the play itself or his role within it was not well known enough to merit an article online or in a paper. However, one performance in the play Seagull has gained him some recognition, most favorably by the Daily Herald, which is the largest paper in Chicago, but it's only a brief mention. It's a tough call, but I'd say he's definitely not had multiple AND notable roles in theatre, but one at most. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 09:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do agree that the stage work might not meet the lessor inclusion critertia of WP:ENT, but am thinking of the governing criteria of WP:GNG, as theater is not really considered in WP:ENT. Having myself been involved in creating an article for a thespian, I am aware of the difficulties. It still needs more research to see if there is less-then-trivial coverage, or if his work received critical review... which is why I proffer only a "weak" keep opinion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think I'll just have to respectively disagree with that, and let the closing administrator decide. WP:ENT covers actors, and specifically mentions theatre actors through "stage performances". Anyway, I see where your coming from, it could use research but we could say that for every article which comes through here. A preliminary look leads to me to believe notability cannot be established. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 20:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q Manning

NN autobiography written by User: Qmanning. Compared to his self-praising article, his IMDB page looks pretty bare. "Q Manning" only gets 58 hits on Google news, and that's counting articles about people like "John Q. Manning", "Robert Q. Manning", etc. When I add "Conflict of interest" or any of his other work to the search, nothing pops up. Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of puffery. Directed a few non-notable shorts and has won some small, non-notable awards. Brushing by notability, but not there yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Userfy to author. Current blustery article is unsupportable in reliable sources, but this may change. Ironic that his current project is a film called Conflict of Interest. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kaiserman

Puffed-up bio of a American rabbi, created by the subject's brother (whose own vanity bio was deleted at AFD two years ago). Cutting through the puffery and standard CV material ut organizational appointments finds very little underneath and no substantial sources attesting otherwise. Calton | Talk 16:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom has it right. Cut through the BS and he's not notable. It almost looked like he'd written a book, but it was really a piece on Amazon recapping his recommendations of some books. Refs merely show he is a regular guy doing his job.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Niteshift. These guys really think that a list by the subject on Amazon counts as a reliable source on that topic, that "outreach" is one his many fortes? Drmies (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable rabbi. 72.58.155.140 (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete. the wub "?!" 00:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of People Believed to be Geniuses

List based upon subjective qualifications Mblumber (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Highly subjective. Even if reliable sources were quoted, it would nevertheless remain subjective. And despite the hyperbole surely Michael Jackson isn't a genuis alongside Leonardo da Vinci. --Oscarthecat (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for crying out loud. Delete as astonishingly subject hodge-podge. --Calton | Talk 16:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I realize that this article was created in good faith, but it falls in the same category as trying to make a list of men considered to be hunks. The objective definition of genius is a person with an IQ over 140. Suffice to say that there are many well-known people who have an IQ over more than 140 who would not be popularly described with the word "genius". And there are many people who are subjectively described with "He's a genius!". Sadly, the media never refers to a female, no matter how accomplished, as a genius, not even if its Marilyn vos Savant or Marie Curie. Mandsford (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For two reasons. One. Any body can be "believed" to be geniuses, when they are just really smart, so this list is pretty much filled with original research. And because the author didn't put me on the list :P KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 17:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with other people's concerns of this being entirely subjective. And it's totally unsourced. Perhaps, if some context were given and the material were adequately sourced, material referinging individuals referred to as "geniuses" could be added to the main page on Genius. This would be the encyclopedic way of doing it...not creating an unsourced and rather arbitrary list like this. Cazort (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the good reasons already listed. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chime chime, snow snow. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this is kept I insist on adding myself. Ostap 19:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow me. I put you under "Music and Entertainment." Drmies (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol :) Ostap 20:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Otherwise we'd have to include all of Category:Mathematicians (per [9] and [10]) and that would be way too many people for a manageable list. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're just jealous cause you got one 'p' too many in your name. Move to strike this NPOV vote. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My name is not on the list. — Rankiri (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 04:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Ferrell

Yes, there is media coverage, but not everything the tabloids write about is encyclopedic. She has not done anything notable, just tricked some men for money and stole some things. There is some media attention because she is attractive, and everyone likes to make fun of hipsters. Apoc2400 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I would say keep and wait. There are a few court cases coming up and there will be more press coverage then when more facts are laid out. Parkerparked (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No matter how many newspapers waste space on it, it still comes back to WP:BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is the very in-depth subject of of secondary sources that are independent of the subject, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. That's why I created the article. Not even currently included in the article is this multi-paged extremely in-depth article about this topic in The New York Observer. And it was just "one event," but a still-ongoing series of events. The nom's "There is some media attention because she is attractive, and everyone likes to make fun of hipsters" is a completely subjective personal "analysis" that has nothing to do with our notability guidelines.--Oakshade (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is encyclopedic is somewhat subjective. That is why the general notability guideline is just guideline. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a strong belief amongst many, if not most, editors that notability is not subjective and that placing personal opinions on notability-canceling "reasons" that there has been secondary coverage ("There is some media attention because she is attractive, and everyone likes to make fun of hipsters") is not a proper substitute for our actual notability guidelines.--Oakshade (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she's notable enough to be kept. There are other more questionable articles out there than this when it comes to her type. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. The above argument fails per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because the project is riddled with BLP nightmares does not mean we should add to the pile. لenna vecia 00:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Making a big deal out of small-scale crimes. I apply BLP rather narrowly, not expansively, but I think it does apply here. DGG (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E. If there are other more questionable articles out there, that is a clear justification to bring those here, not a justification to keep this. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. Everyking (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ginn

Unnotable entertainer. Only two minor roles, neither of which are even apparently notable enough for mention in the series articles (and Amazing Extraordinary Friends doesn't even have a confirmed 3rd series noted yet). Fails WP:N and WP:ENTERTAINER. Prod removed by creator without any reason given. As a note, same creator had also "expanded" the article by copy/pasting Ginn's list of "roles" he played in his film school in the article, copy/pasting them from Ginn's public resume, which have since been removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete who is this man and what has he done? I would have him shot! Hasmme Vogel (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC) — Hasmme Vogel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 19:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Taimoorazy

Non-notable doctor. Possibly written by the subject or someone related. "Physician of the Year" is a political donation, not a real award. I could not find any coverage in reliable sources when I searched Google Web, News, Books and Scholar. Apoc2400 (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I found this interview in a previous version of the article, but that is all. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at least for now. His (self-published?) 2008 book has no reviews yet, and the awards listed here and here do not pass WP:BIO for notability. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete because as an Assyrian he is listed in the category of List of Assyrians, meaning though he may not be known world-wide, he is notable within his own specific ethnic group, the Assyrians. He is also an inventor of the napas device which is used in the medical field. Zayya (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was added there by you. [11]. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find any evidence that his invention is particularly widely used, but I am not confident that I was performing the right searches. If it has had a significant impact on the field of anesthesiology, it would be appropriate to discuss its inventor at that (currently nonexistent) article. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware I added him! I think this needs much more research and his article requires expansion. I unfortunately cannot get to it immediately. If the consensus here is to delete the article, I don't particularly have an objection. However, I do object to a quick deletion without further research. Zayya 09:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. As for holding on to the article for further research, it can copy it to your sub-page and work on it there. I will note that as a minimum, establishing notability with some basic research should have been done when the article was created. -- Whpq (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep - this belongs at MfD. I'll open a thread there now. Non-admin closure. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Cockpuppet

Primarily violates WP:NEO as an unknown/fake neologism. Could be userfied as an essay, if properly expanded (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 04:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor crowl

Contested prod. No evidence of notability. Or anything else. Google hits seem to be only on social networking sites - nothing substantive. Fails WP:N, WP:VER andy (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No mention of him in the article about the album he is supposedly involved with. Can't find anything about his "well known act of heroism" (which the article doesn't even tell us about. A few ghits, but nothing that makes him look notable to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... yep, the article is lacking sourcing. But they seem to be available... at least for some of the assertions [12]. However, it all seems thin. I'll withold further comment and see if the author cleans up his 2-day-old article. He not know about sandboxes? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did find this which is an Irish newspaper. But I am unable to find any additional coverage of significance that would establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 04:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Dodge

Non notable voice actor. Provided references are all to his website and on searching there appears to be no independent coverage. Nuttah (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see the notability. WP:ENT Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability established. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wdelete. he's no michael jackson? @@@@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasmme Vogel (talk • contribs) 14:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 04:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trading games

Thinly veiled advertising of non-notable gaming site. Oscarthecat (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to Business simulation game as a plausible target.--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are no sources here just links to a few "sample" sites. Violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. meshach (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orRedirect to pirate memory games -- likely spam. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 04:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Financial gaming

Thinly veiled advert of non-notable gaming website. Oscarthecat (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only, too vague to be redirect of Business simulation game.--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:SOAP and WP:N. Author seems to be creating numerous very similar articles for apparent promotion of related websites. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orRedirect to pirate memory games -- likely spam. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The notability of the subject in regard to the Cold War period is obvious; the question here is about content, focus and referencing in the article. However, that can be addressed via the editing process. AfD is not WP:CLEANUP, and I would recommend all interested parties in this discussion to please revisit the article and work towards its improvement. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet-run peace movements in Western Europe and the United States

The article purports to be about peace movements in the west that were run by the Soviet Union or other communist countries, but it does not name a single such movement and discussion has failed to yield any. Such useful information as it does contain, on covert Soviet operations and the Polish-Soviet war (itself completely irrelevant to the topic), is already on other pages. Soviet influence (as opposed to control) can be dealt with in Covert operation, Communist front or Astroturfing. This article is redundant and is merely anti-communist and anti-peace-movement POV pushing. Marshall46 (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^{I took it upon myself to fix the header with subst:afd2. I hope you don't mind. — Rankiri (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with Communist front of which this is basically a POV fork, even if it was created independently. As the nominator notes, the cited sources do not support the assertions made in the article. Dlabtot (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. The article has references enough already, and the subject is notable. That said, I found an excellent source for further expansion: Richard Felix Staar, Foreign policies of the Soviet Union, Hoover Press, 1991, ISBN 0817991026 ([13]). Soviet Foreign Propaganda chapter starts at p.75, in particular, look at Front Organizations chapter at p.79, there is a large list of such organizations, from World Peace Committee to Esperantist Movement for Peace or International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War... On p.84., there is a subchapter for Front Conferences, and on p.86, a subchapter on "Specialized Peace Movements". Communist front is a related but distinct article, since it refers to a USA phenomena, while this article is broader. That said, I support renaming it to Soviet-influenced peace movements, as has been discussed on talk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced article. The article is neither anti-communist nor anti-peace-movement. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not good enough. Ostap 16:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:POVFORK, WP:SYN, WP:FRINGE? Here are some of my impressions:

The article's title is already seriously challenged by its own the introductory section, which describes the Soviet "peace" operations as fake and subversive.

The main section, which takes up more than 50 percent of the page, is dedicated to Russo-Polish relations that are already fully discussed on Causes of the Polish–Soviet War, Polish–Soviet War, Aftermath of the Polish–Soviet War and other similar pages. Unless one can classify the repulsion of the Soviet invasion at the Battle of Warsaw as a Soviet-run peace movement, this section appears to be completely out of place and unrelated to topic of the article.

The rest of it is no better. The following two sections rely solely on derogatory rumors and hearsay evidence—some accusations by a British trade unionist and a couple of ambiguous quotes by former Russian intelligence officers of questionable credibility or motivation. As for the last section, any Soviet support for nuclear disarmament can just as easily be seen as a matter of national security, particularly considering the partial natures of the KGB and the Soviet Peace Committee. The section also appears to be completely irrelevant, as it fails to provide any type of connection between the Soviet propagandist efforts and the article's subject matter.

In addition, as mentioned above, the article doesn't really name any Soviet-run peace movements. Most of the cited sources support the facts but not the conclusions and insinuations that accompany them. The article is also ridden with a number of unchallenged one-sided WP:REDFLAG statements like:

According to Oleg Kalugin, a former KGB general, "the Soviet intelligence was really unparalleled..."

Russian former intelligence officer and SVR defector Sergei Tretyakov claimed that the KGB "created the myth of nuclear winter".

According to Russian GRU defector Stanislav Lunev, the Soviet Union spent more money on funding of U.S. anti-war movements during the Vietnam War than on funding and arming the VietCong forces. — Rankiri (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funding peace movements now lists some organization names but the entire paragraph takes its information from "National Communist Front Organizations" and "Organizations Closely Connected with Fronts" ([14], pp.79-83))) and is duplicated on Communist_front#Alleged_CPUSA_front_organizations.2C_circa_1980. — Rankiri (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly rename. This is obviously a notable subject, but the article is still a stub. Having a few POV statements is not a reason for deletion. I do not see any "red flags" here. Oleg Kalugin, Tretiakov, and Stanislav Lunev are the best available specialists in the field of KGB and GRU operations. Why? Because they conducted such operations themselves. The sources are published books. They express mainstream views.Biophys (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that Theodore Kaczynski is the best available specialist in the field of the Unabomber's operations? Dlabtot (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Any book written by a good author about Kaczynski, based on interviews with him and other sources (like Comrade J by Pete Earley cited here) would certainly qualify. All these people also work as official consultants for US government. Nothing even close to crazy Unabomber.Biophys (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that you avoided answering my question. Dlabtot (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to stay objective. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of wild nationalistic theories. The keystone policies clearly state that articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking, and that each article must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias. — Rankiri (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to address most of the issues. Two of the article's sections (roughly 80%) seem to be completely unconnected with the subject. Without them, everything that's left is two trivial quotes and an obscure libel case from 1940. As for "mainstream" views, please recall WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. I believe that at least some of these claims are both incorrect and highly controversial. — Rankiri (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve.Biophys (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I saw any potential for improvement, I wouldn't recommend to delete it in the first place. — Rankiri (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. The article is still young. It's a bit early to be closing it. -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know we had grace periods for bad articles. Also, rename to what? Considering that the article doesn't really mention any actual peace movements, "Soviet-influenced peace movements" seems just as inappropriate as the present name. — Rankiri (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The introduction and "Cold war" sections might make a legitimate article, but I do not see the relevance of the earlier ones. I suspect that the rest might usefully be merged to Communist front. I very much doubt that many were actually "run" by USSR, even if it financed them, unless they were only in Moscow, not in the west at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is actually a good deal of literature on this, do it needn't be a matter of opinion. DGG (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list some relevant literature in the further reading section of the article or on talk? I am having trouble finding more sources :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and work on improving it. Someone said there was no grace period for bad articles. Actually, there is, and it lasts as long as we need it to there is no deadline -- WP:DEADLINE though technically an essay, is actually a well accepted guideline. The basis for it is that we are building an encyclopedia incrementally--a consequence of the very basis policy NOT PAPER.DGG (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEADLINE may refer to poorly written, underdeveloped articles but certainly not to content forks that consist of original research, irrelevant information and various unverifiable claims. That's when WP:DP—an actual policy—comes into effect. — Rankiri (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest delete yet There are more citations of Richard F. Starr's book (eighteen) than there are other sources that match the article text, combined (fifteen). Starr's citations in his book include citations of books by Richard F. Starr. I am not joking. He really does cite himself, numerous times.

Starr paints the WPC black by assertion and then assumes that the rest of the WPC list of affiliated organizations are guilty by association. Any action of any organization on the list is then considered to be an action directed from Moscow. The only real citation of anything whatever of consequence in the entire nine pages of Starr's assertions and lists is one man's testimony before the US Congressional Committee for Intelligence. The text is not given.

Five citations, including the one of Starr's in the lede, do not verify what is said in the article.

Of the 15 non-Starr verifying cites, eight are in the first half of the article. This section, is about the pre-WWII Soviet maneuvering to get themselves a piece of Poland. Sad. But with no facts that bear upon the title of the article. The article is a stub without it, but then, I don't think it should be an article at all.

Of the remaining seven non-Starr, verifying, relevant citations in the article, one is from an ex-KGB accused of being a double agent. Two are from a defector. As well as spinning some ripping yarns about Russia funding anti-war movements during Viet Nam to get them to protest against the war (Talk about money well spent, eh? That must have been hard) the defector promised that there were caches of nuclear weapons hidden throughout Europe, guarded by bomb traps. At one of the locations, searchers accidentally set off an explosive device. Seeing as I haven't heard anything about a giant cloud of uranium particles floating across any of the states bordering Switzerland, or a cache of nuclear material, I am just going to have to assume that there wasn't any weapons-grade uranium at that location. Why does that sound familiar? He can always make up the locations of some more, if he is getting a bit short on lecture invitations.

Another defector given the remaining four cites (it was five, but it didn't match the text and there was another cite that didn't match the text anyway, why confuse things with one tag for two non-matching cites) doesn't need to go on lecture tours. He was given 2 million dollars by the CIA when he defected. He has a heck of a story about a couple of red-linked (WP, not commie conspiracy) russian science labs that cooked up this story about, get this, giant clouds of radioactive dust obscuring the sun for years, and called it, hah! nuclear winter. Can you believe it? Boy were those Nobel-prize-winning scientists dumb to fall for that one. Still not sure it was worth $2 million though. He wrote a book, too, for when the two million dollars runs out.

I added two citations to the article, which cite that useful idiots was wrongly attributed to Lenin. It is my opinion that this is the only solid piece of evidence in the entire article. It's kind of like hanging a gold star on top of a dead christmas tree. You end up wishing you didn't enjoy making things look nicer, so much. Or had an industrial-strength gold star to use, that would make it all better. It's awkward to clarify that there is no proof of it being Lenin's statement, etc etc, so wrongly will just have to do unless the whole phrase is removed or someone can think of a better way to phrase it.

If I am counting right, the entire article rests on the testimony of five individuals. There is no indication that anyone else in the historical community concurs with Starr, the two defectors, the double agent, or even the Congressional witness.

Anarchangel (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I completely disagree with the nominator that information in this article should be added to other articles. The madness must stop here. Unless there is, somewhere, better evidence for the existence of Soviet influence on western activist organizations, then any information on this subject should be restricted to articles about urban legends. Extraordinary claims such as these require extraordinary evidence. At this point I would probably settle for two cites per fabulously widesweeping and generalized insinuation, but I have probably had all my common sense worn down by the offhand and wholesale confabulation of this article. Anarchangel (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per Anarchangel. Whoever said the article is well sourced is surely mistaken. The meat of the article relies almost entirely on one very dubious, non-academic source. The article itself is a collection of agenda driven conspiracy theories while casually trying to pass itself off as uncontested history. LokiiT (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the existence and notability of the topic have been demonstrated through reliable sources. The article isn't perfect, but can be improved through the editing process. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article and title may need some improvements but keep it.--Jacurek (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete - a collection of suspicious testimony and unreliable sources. None of which testify to the existence of any Soviet-run peace movements. As noted by nominator. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Article is imperiously bad. The first section is a SYNTH that since the Soviet Union fought wars, any pro-peace statements by them must be hypocritical and false. The last section is the SYNTH that since the WPC was Soviet-influenced, peace movements in general must be subjected to scrutiny for Soviet hypocrisy. The only reliable, peer-reviewed sources in the article (from Staar) pertain to the World Peace Council which, guess what, has its own article! I vote for deletion in the firm belief not that a future article on Soviet influence in Western peace movements could not be written, but that not a single passage of the current article should survive in it. If neither an article's name nor its content are worth preserving, the only solution is to delete it. Basta. 80.221.34.183 (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strange, aimless essaying to support a led that merely says It has been claimed. Completely non-encyclopedic goo. 2005 (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I will NOT allow Wikipedia to be censored by obviously biased liberal editors. If this is deleted I will appeal and take further action myself 72.70.155.131 (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second edit for this IP, probably encapsulates well what the controversy in this article is all about. 80.221.34.183 (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 04:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hutchison

Hutchison was delisted by North Melbourne without playing a senior game in the Australian Football League. Fails WP:Athlete. Jevansen (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Notability is not transferable from a sports club to a player. The player has to have actually done something of note (such as play in a first team match). The subject here did not. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failed to play a senior game, ergo, non-notable. –Moondyne 03:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Colpi

Article that came to my attention as an unsourced BLP (unsourced since 2006). Both reading the article and searching through news archives convinces me that there are not independent reliable sources writing primarily about him. I don't think that he passes the general notability requirements Peripitus (Talk) 08:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If either that he was the first foreign publisher to sign a license with Shueisha or the claims of his influence in spreading manga in Europe can be verified, I would argue it would be a sufficiently notable achievement that we do not need sources writing primarily about him -- his doing it would be enough. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If all we can say, while meeting the standards here, is that he exists then we have a very very poor article. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, being a poor article is not a crime. That's the thing about collaborative volunteer projects -- sometimes you have wait a while for someone who knows about the subject (or is sufficiently motivated to learn) to swot things into shape. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By Poor article I mean that all we can write from the reliable sources that exist today is that he exists. We can say the same about a vast number of people but that hardly makes for an encyclopedic article. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 08:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search verifies the nominator's claims...I find very few sources (5 google news archive hits), and they seem to be either written by him, or just mention him briefly, as in [15] or [16]. Google doesn't turn up anything good either, he seems very solidly non-notable. Cazort (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I easily found references about him, adding three external links. There is plenty more out there to add, but three is enough to prove notability. You can also search for his name or the name of his company d/world with the name of the series they released, if you wanted to find information. He was the first to bring over many notable manga and anime series from Japan to Europe, and continued to do so today. Dream Focus 23:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some people have strange ideas, what is a RS, it is not random stuff you find on internet. Reliable, independant sources people. RetroS1mone talk 00:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete - Those links that were just added are not reliable independent sources. I'm unable to turn up any information on the man myself in Italian or English, however this information does look like it was taken from an interview, though I think they're from several personal blogs that I've found that have interviewed him, which wouldn't be a reliable source. I checked the Italian version and it is also unsourced, it appears to be a translation of the English article. I would say this should be deleted and/or userfied unless reliable independent sources are found to verify this information. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep for Gretl Braun and no consensus for Ilse Braun with leave to speedy renominate the latter. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gretl Braun

This person is the sister of Eva Braun, but really doesn't seem to have done anything else to confer any kind of independent notability; and there doesn't seem to be any reliable source coverage outside of brief mentions in works about her sister or about Hitler. ~ mazca ^talk 07:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also nominating her other sister, Ilse Braun for the same reason. ~ mazca ^talk 08:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable in own right, notability not inherited from family member per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Family and WP:NOTINHERITED. WWGB (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WWGB. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither encyclopedically notable, Ilse unsourced. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-04t09:35z, -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-05t11:00z
Keep Article now expanded with references, as a member of Hitler's inner circle at the Berghof I think she is notable enough to stay in. -- Sealman (talk), 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Is her membership in the "inner circle" based on being related to someone or because she actually performed a function? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is probable her membership was due to her sister’s relationship with someone, but she is also notable for then appearing in many of the home movies and photographs of her photographer sister which have frequently been included in documentary films and published works.Sealman (talk) 23.20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep, not notable because of her temporary relationship, but notable per Sealman's references: note that, despite their similar names, the books are all different. Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that she's mentioned in those references, but I really can't see any evidence she's done anything remotely notable outside of her relationship to Eva. We tend not to have independent articles about famous peoples' relatives, even though they're probably mentioned in biographies of that person - they haven't done anything notable themselves. I have yet to see any reason this is an exception. ~ mazca ^talk 19:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 08:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am finding very substantial coverage in a Google books search: this book [17] is written primarily about Eva, but also mentions Gretl in highly substantive ways, providing historical context, biographical info...the whole search in all books can be found here: [18]. This seems very solid to me, between these sources the article could be tightly sourced and actually probably expanded somewhat. Cazort (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cazort. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gretl Braun, delete Ilse Braun - the former does seem notable as a member of Hitler's inner circle, with multiple references to addirm to this; the latter has no claim to fame other than being the sister of Eva Braun, and notability is not inherited. Giant Snowman 13:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This point should be emphasised - when I nominated these articles, both were in the same state and had the same problems. Improvements have been made to Gretl; but Ilse remains just as unsourced and non-notable. The same decision may not apply to both, and I'd encourage any participants and the closing admin to review this. I'm slightly regretting the batch-nomination now, though at the time there was nothing to separate them. ~ mazca ^talk 14:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced Ilse Braun isn't notable, although admittedly a similar book search [19] shows fewer hits and substantially less detailed coverage. But that's another discussion! Cazort (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gretl based on the sources found. Merge Ilse to Eva Braun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward321 (talk • contribs)

I think merging/redirecting Isle into this page is a good idea for now. Cazort (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, she is clearly an historical personage, and in my opinion entries on such people are one of Wiki's strong suits: Wiki is not like other encyclopedias that are limited by pages of paper and book covers. Wiki can seek a degree of granularity that is unprecedented, and it should do so, in my opinion. This entry is a prime example. As for her sister, Ilse, her entry may simply require some research and editing. Estéban (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia – United Arab Emirates relations

whilst noting they have embassies and are both Islamic countries, there is a distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, [20], there is a little bit of business dealings like this but not enough to make an article. the two countries cricket teams (which are considered 2nd tier) played in 2004 and I know of at least 1 editor that would think this equates to bilateral relations, clearly not. LibStar (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll bet that is a lot of trade, traffic and guest workers between these two Muslim nations, enough to generate reliable sources. There are 15,400 Google news hits for "Malasia UAE". (I've generally agreed with LibStar's efforts to rid Wikipedia of these sorts of articles.) Abductive (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a valid reason. you will note much of those 15,000 articles is multilateral (ie any article that mentions these 2 countries + say Saudi Arabia, Singapore etc etc). LibStar (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say keep or delete, I just made a prediction. Abductive (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 04:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kings transport

AfDs for this article:

Back in 2005 this article was nominated for deletion by VfD and as Copyvio at the same time. Somehow it survived both when it should have been deleted as copyvio (at least). Now the company's webpage has changed but this remains. In any case, this cargo company is not notable. (About their only claim to notability is sponsoring a race car in the Australian Formula 3.) Abductive (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I do find a few hits in google news archive: [21] they appear to be mostly press-releases and other information originating from the company itself, not independent sources. Seems solidly non-notable. Recommend Speedy Delete on the grounds of (1) promotional content (b) COPYVIO concerns. (iii) previous AfD. Cazort (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spammy and doesn't meet WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like advertising, fails WP:ORG. –Moondyne 03:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This is based on the rule that anyone who holds a named chair qualifies. Amthernandez (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Epstein (law professor)

Obscure faculty member with no claim to fame. Wikipedia is not a telephone directory Amthernandez (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can't say he's obscure, seems to be an expert on the topic bankruptcy. Salih (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obscurity : I did have a comment about obscurity and inclusion. I guess after all the guidelines and policies, I still have to ask if a typical wiki or google user would find an entry helpful. And, historically, obscure yet notable ( explanation to follow) topics are those most likely to be needed by a casual "researcher" who may be using an encyclopedia rather than some other resource. So, unless you just want a collection of popular factoids, it may be important to determine if "obscure" is really the opposite of "notable" and even try to find "obscure but notable" topics. In this case, is the person known of referenced in any specialized document collection such as court filings( here the lawyers would help themselves if they made the court PACER system free and searchable but IIRC they accept scanned PDF's which are not searchable by automated tools and their token charges intimidate casual users) and legal trade or other journals? Does his name come up a lot in SEC filings and may be of interest to people researching a specific company? Certainly there are issues with duplication but even if his bio comes up in legal bio sites, it doesn't seem to create a problem for the searcher. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
further comment on delete On reading other deletes, notability is a common theme. This man is not notable. There are small town mayors deemed not notable. A professor's department is far, far smaller than a town so even a department chairman is a small fry. A professor may be in an obscure journal but all of us are in high school yearbooks and often have a mention in newspapers. Nerdseeksblond mentioned his name is in SEC filings. A lot of murderers have had their article deleted despite many mentions in the news. So a name in print in SEC filings is not good enough. I looked up notability and if he was a university president (highest position) or chancellor in some universities, he would qualify. Otherwise, he doesn't and doesn't for the other criteria. As far a being a notable professor, this man is not one of them. So even if he's a nice man, he's a delete. Amthernandez (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have specific policies to determine whether an Academic is notable or not; see WP:PROF. Salih (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it can be verified, being the DEAN of two notable law schools is certainly notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to go out on a limb and accept that his resume is not a lie, and in that case, keep per Niteshift. I'm adding an unreferenced tag to the article, for good measure. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being the primary BarBri lecturer on contracts for 25 years is enough to establish notability. About 80% of American lawyers take a BarBri course before taking the bar exam, which means that for 25 years over 40,000 people per year have sat through David Epstein's discourse on how "Armadillos from Texas play rap eating tacos" (agreement, formation, terms, performance, remedies, excuse, third parties), and his endless jokes about his supposed obsession with Sharon Stone. bd2412 T 20:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep. According to some text in this news search (unfortunately behind a for-pay firewall) he also held a named professorship. Sometimes those are ex officio (a slush fund for the dean) but more often they are given as an honor to distinguished professors; if the latter, he passes WP:PROF #5. Regardless, he seems to be a prominent law scholar. By the way, the similarity between his name and mine is purely coincidental; as far as I know we are completely unrelated. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Law school deans are inherently notable, whether they hold a chair or not. bd2412 T 21:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  - That's not what WP:PROF says. But I found and documented another named chair, at Alabama. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:PROF #6: "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society". Dean is the highest level academic post at a law school, which is an academic institution. bd2412 T 22:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
      - Again, no. See "Notes and examples", #13. This criterion refers only to president or chancellor of the whole university, and was explicitly intended to forestall "she's chair of a department therefore she's automatically notable" style arguments. It may well be that most deans of law schools are notable, but not by this criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        A law school dean is simply not comparable to a department chair. The American Bar Association sets forth regulations on the operation of law schools which must be followed for such an institution to receive and maintain ABA accreditation. These regulations specify that "A law school shall have a full-time dean, selected by the governing board or its designee, to whom the dean shall be responsible". ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools, Standard 206(a). Thus, a law school dean may not simply be a professor selected by fellow professors, nor even by the President of the University. Various provisions in the ABA regulations act to require that a law school will have substantial independence from the university with which it is affiliated, so the law school dean effectively holds the highest post within a distinct academic institution. bd2412 T 01:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WRONG INFORMATION BY BD2412 A law school dean is a subordinate to the university chancellor or president. See this link of a law school dean that got fired. The dean is NOT independent. http://www.ocregister.com/news/chemerinsky-law-eastman-1844112-dean-school Amthernandez (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7 more law school deans fired by the university president in one year alone See http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Law/No-good-dean-goes-unpunished-seven-law-deans-were-fired-so-far-this-year-despite-raising-funds-hirin.html Amthernandez (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly did I say that a law school dean can not be fired by a University professor? Please read more carefully (or, perhaps, at all) before throwing out accusations that do not relate to the evidence provided. bd2412 T 02:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep The article as it stands is tightly-sourced and I see no problems with it. He also has authored some books, on bankruptcy: [22] and consumer law: [23], and I think at least one other book, and google scholar shows evidence that the books have been cited, and at least one of them is in its second edition. Cazort (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
more information Some of these people have a conflict of interest because they have taken a course (BarBri) given by him.

I don't have a problem with former students chipping in as long as their contributions to the discussion are well-reasoned. I once created an article on a professor while I shared an office next to his...people close to someone are more likely to know the subject in detail, and are more likely to be able to locate good sources. Also, I think "Some of these people" is a classic example of weasel words--either name specific people and give evidence, or refrain from making accusations. Cazort (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Some of these people" in this case would be more than half of the lawyers practicing in the United States today (which is exactly why the guy is notable). To suggest that this represents a conflict of interest is almost like saying that anyone who has watched some Obama speeches has a conflict of interest in writing about Obama. bd2412 T 03:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Having taken the course shouldn't preclude anyone from commenting on the issue. There is no financial incentive, nor any evident reason to promote the course. Should I be precluded from commenting on article about Florida State University because I attended it? I guess no commenting on Steelers articles either. Do veterans have a COI if the comment on articles about the Army? Come on guy. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF says: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. SEEMS TO FAIL, NO IMPACT OTHER THAN GIVING A LECTURE, NO RESEARCH BY HIM CITED

The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.FAILS

The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE) FAILS

The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. FAILS, JUST A PENCIL PUSHER

The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. FAILS

The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society. FAILS, HE WAS NOT CHANCELLOR OR UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT, THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF LAW SCHOOLS, MANY IN UNIVERSITIES THAN HAVE LITTLE REPUTATION NATIONALLY

The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. FAILS

The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area. FAILS

The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. FAILS

SORRY, TOO OBSCURE AND NOT NOTABLE A MAN. HOWEVER, IF A DEAN IS ENOUGH FOR THE RULES, THEN THE RULES SHOULD BE CHANGED TO SAY "BEING A DEAN OF A SCHOOL (PART OF A UNIVERSITY) IS ENOUGH FOR WIKIPEDIA" I DON'T OBJECT TO A DEAN IF THE RULES SAY THAT A DEAN, NO MATTER HOW OBSCURE, QUALIFIES. Amthernandez (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down here! This is not failblog.org! I think this person meets the WP:GNG; I don't think we need to appeal to him being "automatically notable" just because he's a dean--frankly that's irrelevant to me (I would agree with you that being a dean doesn't automatically make one notable--it would depend on how much had been documented about you in reliable sources, as a result of benig a dean). Cazort (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of fail, Amthernandez fails badly on interpreting WP:PROF #5. Epstein has held at least two named chairs at major institutions, one of which is documented in the article, the other of which I am certain of from news search results but do not have adequate documentation to add to the article. It seems likely to me that he passes several others of the criteria as well (e.g. here's plenty of evidence that he passes #4: his texts are assigned reading in, it seems, thousands of courses). And in any case BD2412 were not disagreeing at all on whether he is notable, only on a technical point in one of our guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rational arguments and research to justify application of WP:PROF#5 by David Eppstein; the filibustering by Amthernandez isn't helping much either. An early close might be appropriate in this case. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Amthernandez, please stop with all the oversized text and bolding. Relax dude, we can all read. Where is my WP:Trout? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. If someone can say with authority that all law school deans are notable, I will withdraw the nomination. Also if someone can say with authority that any faculty member who is given a chair is notable, I will withdraw the nomination. But be careful about the chair requirement. Some rich people donate to a university and the department chair assigns a faculty member to be that Joe Smith Professor of Sociology. The faculty member could be a non-notable idiot so using the definition of a chair is very silly. Please respond. Amthernandez (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:PROF #5, the person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research are notable. He meets this criterion and hence notable enough to have his bio on Wikipedia. Further, he does not seem to be an idiot for me and others who !voted here. Salih (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wether he's an idiot or not, is irrelevant to this AfD, but many universities clearly don't think so. In addition, the arguments at this AfD have shown that he isn't the idiot. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:PROF. Salih (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G11 or A7, take your pick. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 09:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and Blokes

WP:NOTE. Article about small internet upstart, does not appear notable for Wikipedia. Sk8er5000 (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam and also non-notable website. WWGB (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of characters from Sons of Anarchy. BJ^Talk 19:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Ortiz

Articles lacks third party references and real world information.A google search for "Juice Ortiz" gives nothing related except some links to IMDB. It seems an editor kept creating articles for every single fictional character of the TV series Sons of Anarchy without any prior discussion in the TV serie's talk page or List of characters. List of characters from Sons of Anarchy already exists and has short descriptions of every character, it's better organised but still needs a lot of work (for example it separates characters to "Active" and "former" and has a "Deceased characters" section). No need to use information of this article (i.e. no need to "merge"). A redirect is also not the best choice. My experience has shown if articles for possible real person don't exist, new editors are more likely to create new articles. Magioladitis (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sufficient notability for own article is not established: inclusion in article on all the characters is plenty. 79.123.72.90 (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why in the world would you be against a redirect? The non-existence of an article just encourages someone to create it, whereas pointing them to where the info is already covered encourages them to improve what we already have. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My experience agrees with Thaddeus--when the redirect page for a trivial character does not exist, people do tend to recreate it. DGG (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had some examples supporting my argument but I can't find them in my watchlist anymore. Anyway, I thought again about that since the name is not that common I would not oppose a redirect. In this case it's more likely the article to be recreated with the same content than to be created for a real person. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and possibly merge if there is anything useful to merge (knowing nothing about series I can't tell what is useful or not), but regardless a redirect at minimum is appropriate. (Thought I'd make my !vote clear since I previously "only" commented.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page has references and sources to support it, and it is reasonably well written. It should be merged at very least. WölffReik (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 04:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC) I don't know who deleted this article or when it was deleted, but frankly it pisses me off quite a bit that it was.[reply]

Whoever did this needs to realize a few things. First and foremost, this band has been around since 1969 in the Ann Arbor, Michigan area and it has a TREMENDOUS fan base and following in this area. It appears as though a google stalk was done of the band and you basically eluded to the fact that not much turned up. This is surprising given the FIRST thing that appears on a google search is the bands website (rfdboys.com). If you take the time to actually click on the link you will see a decently comprehensive and focused history of the band. Also, if you had done a seconds more research you would have seen from this original wikipedia article OR from the aforementioned website that they regularly play at The Ark which is a nationally renowned folk venue. The Ark also has a website (theark.org) and if you look at their calendar of events...SURPRISE you will find the RFD Boys. The article mentions again some of the famous musicians that they have shared the stage with....although you appear content to chalk off such mentions as "name-dropping".

Perhaps your most fatal flaw is your inability to understand that given that this band has been around for 40 years....all the members are in their upper 50's and 60's. Thus they are not as technologically savvy as you AND such "sources" as you desire have not really been converted to electronic form. An example? Example: They were on the cover of Bluegrass Unlimited (which is equivalent to the Rolling Stone of bluegrass music) in May 1976 as well as having another article appear in the magazine in the 80's. Bluegrass Unlimited, however, is a smaller magazine and unfortunately has not converted its archives to electronic form. This can be evidenced by going to the Bluegrass Unlimited website and clicking on their archive section. It will read "coming soon". Thus there are not a bunch of electronic sources that can establish the legitimacy that you are so quick to call into question. Not everything can be answered on the World Wide Web....especially localized entities that have not garnered international fame.

Finally, there are many articles that discuss the band in the local newspaper. That newspaper, the Ann Arbor News, recently went under and thus no longer exists. That, coupled with the fact that many of the articles were again written before electronic archives makes it difficult to link to electronic "sources." There is, however, a mention of the band again on arborweb.org which is a local website (http://arborweb.com/articles/the_rfd_boys.html). One of their albums can be found on Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/RFD-Boys/e/B000ARC6JQ). They also receive mention on the website artist direct (http://www.artistdirect.com/artist/rfd-boys/538607). The Detroit News previews their upcoming September 19th, 2009 performance at the Ark (http://events.detnews.com/ann-arbor-mi/events/show/87652237-the-rfd-boys).

So, basically, I found a bunch of sources in a 5 minute google search. Sorry that the band doesn't have a bunch of electronic resources to please you pinhead tech boys. But this squad is legit and questioning them doesn't sit well with their devoted and at times cult-like fanatical following. It is a bit like dangling a baby chick in front of a Puma. Whether or not this article is ever allowed back on Wikipedia, just now that your challenge as been met and answered. Next time bring a full deck of cards to the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.198.103 (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RFD Boys

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. There are some sources that might establish notability, and I'd be willing to work on the article if necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, and no real claims outside of the name-dropping of musicians that they claim to have played with. --Calton | Talk 16:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete With very little effort, I found a couple sources with short mentions of this band: [24], [25]. Not a huge amount of coverage overall: [26]. I would like to give others, especially the original author if still present and active, some time to contribute more sources. If a single source with more detailed coverage were found I would change my recommendation to a weak keep and two or more such sources would convince me to keep. They have released at least one album: [27] with a local record label. Cazort (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 12:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 04:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imperfect game

Neologism. Not a recognized baseball term, no reliable sources. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Perfect Game KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 17:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should we merge a non-word into an existing article? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--why merge? it's not a recognized term, and a very unlikely search term (just like "imperfect storm," "imperfect 10," "imperfect 5th," etc.). Drmies (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up neologism based on last night's no hitter by Sanchez. I can find no mention of this no-hitter, or any other, being described in this fashion. Tom Seaver once threw a one-hitter called The Imperfect Game, but that is a piece of Mets trivia, not a nod towards notability. Reso lute 22:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find this term being mentioned in coverage of any baseball games. It looks like a rarely used neologism, and there's nothing in the article worth merging. Tim meh 23:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every game that isn't a perfect game is an imperfect game (and those happen every single day, literally). Non-notable and very clumsy term ("close to perfect game" seems a better term). Nate • (chatter) 00:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've never personally heard of this term, but obviously every non-perfect game is imperfect.--Giants27 (c|s) 20:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Icon (airline)

No references besides a logo, has no website and a quick google search brings up few refs. Was originally prodded but I thought the input of a few other editors should be included. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 05:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 11:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt appear to have got past an idea. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2nd Ranger Battalion (United States). BJ^Talk 19:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Trujillo

Nothing of particular notability here.

Left the military as a reserve Captain (not notable)
was in a Ranger battalion and later Special Forces (not notable)
earned the first Silver Star since Vietnam (the Vietnam War ended 10 years earlier in 1973, and there had been no major combat operations since that war. The Silver Star is also only the 3rd highest medal for valor, and recipients aren't necessarily notable. Thousands were awarded in the Vietnam War.)
Mentioned in the State of the Union speech (not notable for wikipedia)
met with Reagan (not notable)
self published online memoir (not notable)
included on a segment of a Discovery Channel program (not notable)
became a DEA agent (not notable).

It reads as though the subject and author are one in the same, which becomes even more likely when one looks at the creators talk page where the editor self-references himself as Steverino Monkeybait (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2nd Ranger Battalion (United States) under a heading of notable alumni using the stuff about the Silver Star and Urgent Fury. Lose the rest about the personal life and DEA. I hate voting delete on guys like this. They are great Americans, but I don't see where he passes notability (even though if the world was fair, he'd be more notable than a guy who records the #200 song on Billboard), althought if someone wanted to argue his being mentioned by name in the State of the Union address (probably the most important speech a president makes each year) and feels that goes beyond BLP1E, I might be inclined to change the vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I kinda feel the same way. A million guys will do awesome stuff in the military, but will remain anonymous, but a 3rd rate actor warrants an article.--Monkeybait (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We should treat this article in the same way that we would treat a similar article on a soldier from China, Russia, Iran or North Korea. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's why I suggested a re-direct to the unit he was most associated with. And if the President of the North Korea decides to use his post important speech of the year to single out a North Korean soldier, I'll give it due consideration as I did with this one.Niteshift36 (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only real claim to notability is the Silver Star, and it is third level. nothing else is particularly notable. DGG (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to pause and reconsider when you vote for delete because it is so rare. Is there a reason you think that the redirect I suggested isn't a reasonable way to go? BTW, it is 3rd in precedence, not third level. There actually is a difference. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)][reply]

It's not that rare. My ratio is about 1:3. And, yes, I think a redirect would be fine. Or a merge & redirect, if necessary.DGG (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - WP:BIO isn't met. Mr Trujillo isn't mentioned in the 2nd Ranger Battalion article, and there's no reason to include anything about him there so a redirect to it wouldn't be appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know he isn't mentioned, that's why I said merge and re-direct, not just redirect. There is a section in the article on US Army Rangers that lists notable alumni. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I saw your comment - I don't think that Mr Trujillo is notable enough to be mentioned specifically at all in that article. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a difficult one, as others appear to have identified. I can see some sort of notability, although it is subjective. It depends upon whether one considers a Silver Star notable. I do personally, however, as has been pointed out in other AfDs there have been thousands (about 130,000 I believe, although I could be wrong) awarded. Possibly it is made more notable by the fact that it was the first Silver Star awarded in about ten years (end of Vietnam War to Grenada). Additionally being mentioned in a President's State of the Union address seems like some sort of confirmation of notability, albeit perhaps temporary. I'd say that it would be fair enough to add mention of the subject and the award in the 2nd Ranger Battalion article (which could do with expansion, btw). — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per AustralianRubert's logic. There is *some* notability here, what with it being the first awarded since vietnam, but certainly not enough to warrant a full article. Covering him in the article on his Unit seems logical. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Niteshift36, AustralianRupert et al. Being mentioned in the State of the Union address is an extremely selective criterion.John Z (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that there were almost no opportunities for American soldiers to earn the Silver Star (which is awarded for valor in the face of the enemy) between the withdrawal from Vietnam and Grenada, I don't see why there's any additional notability attached to Mr Trujillo's award - it was basically impossible for it to have been awarded earlier due to the criteria which governs how it can be earned. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already added the info on Trujillo and other 2/75th alumni to that article. Nick has a good point. In addition, I'd add that yes, "thousands" were awarded during Vietnam, an action that lasted 16 years and involved 550,000 US military. In contrast, Urgent Fury lasted a week and involved 7,300 US military personnel. That's a fairly big difference. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the creator of the page under discussion. Rather than simply advocate keeping the page, I would prefer to see other competent editors work on it. The following comments address issues raised above.
- While it is true that the Silver Star is only the third-highest award for gallantry in action, Trujillo's SS is singular in that it was the only one known to be awarded to a member of the US Army for Operation Urgent Fury. Further, until the USMC elevated CPT Jeb Seagle's SS to the Navy Cross posthumously, the SS was the highest decoration bestowed during Urgent Fury. In retrospect, only one Navy Cross was awarded, and a quite limited number of SS's across all services that participated in the operation. Compared to the number of Bronze Star medals (BSMs) awarded during the operation, which numbered in the thousands, the distinction is stark. While the article correctly notes that other SS's were, indeed, awarded to members of classified US Army units, those decorations are still not public record. It is to be hoped, perhaps, that they will be addressed on their own Wiki page in the future. In the meantime, as far as the public record is concerned, the US Army awarded one SS for Operation Urgent Fury. Whether this distinction is sufficient for mention in Wiki is debatable.
- Operation Urgent Fury was a relatively small operation, and as has been noted, it lasted for a short period of time. It was, however, the first US operation since the conclusion of the Vietnam conflict that saw the awarding of decorations for valor. It is possible that SS's were awarded for actions during Operation Eagle Claw, the attempted rescue of American hostages in Iran, but if this is the case, they remain classified and are not part of the public record. As Trujjilo's SS was the first awarded to any US serviceman since the end of the Vietnam war, it could be considered notable. Trujillo's SS was also the first one awarded to any member of SOCOM, which at that time was a new command, and it remained the only publicly acknowledged SS awarded to any member of the US Army until Operation JUST CAUSE, in 1989, several years later. It is perhaps noteworthy that the US Army apparently awarded a single SS to a US soldier for actions during that conflict, as well, though again, numerous classified decorations are not a part of the public record. In US Army promotional materials of the era, Trujillo was termed "the most highly decorated soldier since the Vietnam war." Trujillo was featured in "advertisements" on Armed Forces Radio and other media. These advertisements are still aired today, in both Afghanistan and Iraq. While Trujillo may not be a celebrity, he is famous among members of the US Army, and particularly among US Army Rangers, who remember him as the first Ranger recipient of an award for heroism of the modern-era Ranger battalions. Whether this rises to a level of notability sufficient for inclusion in Wiki is debatable.
- It is possible that Trujillo's true notability is in his inclusion in the list of so-called "Skutnicks," meaning those people who are mentioned in the State of the Union Address. The term refers to Mr. Lenny Skutnick, who was the first individual so recognized by President Reagan in a State of the Union Address in 1982. Trujillo was among the first US military members to be so distinguished, after Senator Jeremiah Denton, who was also a former POW, in 1982. For an American soldier to be acknowledged by the President in this address is still quite a distinction, as can be confirmed by consulting a listing of people so mentioned since President Reagan began the practice. It is probable that the only other US Army Ranger so recognized was CPT Nate Self. In Trujillo's case, his mention at the time (1984) received wide coverage in both print and television media, and was discussed subsequently in studies of presidential communications by scholars like Kathleen Hall Jamieson and by the Reverend William Sloane Coffin. Whether people mentioned in State of the Union Addresses are more notable because there are more of them year after year, or whether they are less notable because there are more of them year after year, is a question that, again, is debatable. It is not indisputable in my opinion that Trujillo's status as a "Skutnick" meets the criteria for inclusion in Wiki, but it is, along with most other comments addressed here, debatable.
- Trujillo's comments on Operation Urgent Fury comprised a central part of the Discovery Channel episode. His recollections of his participation in the operation were featured, not merely included. According to a transcript of his interview, it should be noted that Trujillo's narrative made not one mention of the SS or the State of the Union Address. It is probable that the producers may not have even known about them.
- Trujillo's authorship of his blog, which has not been updated in quite some time, may be more significant than initially meets the eye. It is a primary resource for researchers writing about the modern-era Ranger Battalions, and about Operation Urgent Fury in particular. At present, the author of the book Kill Bin Ladin is writing about these subjects, and his work draws extensively on the contents of Trujillo's blog, which is separate from his "online memoir." As for the memoir, according to a publication of the US Army Ranger Association, Trujillo has received an offer to publish, and is "doing one last rewrite."
- Discussion in the entry of Trujillo's authorship of New York Times Op-Ed pieces during his work with DEA may merit expansion. The articles were certainly the first that noted a relationship between the Shining Path organization in Peru and narcotics trafficking. This linkage was based on Trujillo's eyewitness experiences in the Upper Huallaga Valley, and it was not a popular revelation in the US government at the time. The articles are often cited in the literature on narcotics trafficking. Whether this matter rises to the degree of notability required for inclusion in Wiki is, like everything else in the entry, debatable.
Per WP:BIO, "notability" is defined as "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notability "in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"... is secondary." Further, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The question of Trujlllo's notability may be sufficient to meet these criteria, particularly when considering "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability."
Trujillo is mentioned in "multiple independent sources." It must be emphasized, however, that WP:BIO states that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Further, WP:BIO states that a person should have "received a notable award or honor." Whether Trujillo's SS, mention in the 1984 State of the Union Address, and status as a "Skutnick" rises to this level is debatable.
Additionally, WP:BIO states that a person should have "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Within the community of serving and retired US Army Rangers, Trujillo's notability certainly meets this criteria. Whether this is sufficient to merit an entry in Wiki is debatable. While there is no category or specific criteria listed for US servicemen or servicewomen under WP:BIO, "Creative professionals," those who are "regarded as an important figure or (are) widely cited by their peers or successors," qualify.
Finally, per WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Trujillo's notability under this criteria is also debatable. Estéban (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Esteban's lengthy response here convinces me that my instinct to vote keep, based on multiple mentions by Reagan and the awards, as well as the long-term notability his temporary notability grew into, is sufficient for a Keep. I will say, however, that the articl reads as bloated for the subject, and needs a serious cutting down to a length appropriate for the subject. ThuranX (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of BattleMechs

Entirely composed of "game guide" content, no encyclopedic information or references. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am a fan of the Mechwarrior series, but this is just a giant list with little value. Some guy (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article is in bad shape, it should be cleaned up and improved rather than deleted in my opinion. Also, I'd wish the nomination would be more specific on the Reasons for Deletion. Entirely composed of "game guide" content? Is it? I'm not sure on the "no encyclopedic information" charge either. There are plenty of similar lists on Wikipedia, from Pokemon to the List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast characters. As for references, the policy page specifically gives "all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" as a reason, not the fact that references aren't given. By the way, the references given by the List of Pokemon appear to be just a bunch of games in which the Pokemon appear. So... do I just add a list of BattleTech games to the list? I suppose not. - 88.217.12.165 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Playing devil's advocate, I think the strongest charge to be leveled at the article would be game-guide content (which falls, more broadly, under the "non-encyclopedic" category). (See also the Zergling AFD for argumentation about such content lists.) Also, for reference, the fact that other similar articles exists is not generally accepted keep rationale for the same reason "Well, he got away with murder!" isn't listened to kindly in police stations. Ourai ^тʃ_с 06:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is of value because it goes into greater depth for the series. Also I agree that more specifications need to be pointed out as to why it should be deleted. It does need alot more work and can be improved.Under the guidelines forReasons for Deletion I can't support the possible deletion of this article.Mcelite (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the list can be greatly improved, yet it's not a valid reason to remove it. In fact it's been of use to me just seconds ago, when I was looking for a list of battlemechs. - 174.3.179.138 (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — With a new Mechwarrior game currently in development, I can see this list getting a lot of love from Battlemech enthusiasts. And it needs that love:P. I agree with the above comment that there are many other such lists, and I see no reason to single this one out for deletion, provided that it is updated and fixed. (And it is useful. I just used it.) Gopher65_talk 14:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Gopher65's logic. As is, there might be an AFD argument (i.e. one that goes beyond "it's a big list"). However, an impending new iteration in the series will undoubtedly draw attention - and cleanup - in the near future. Ourai ^тʃ_с 06:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BattleTech. This appears to be a plot-only summary of a fictional work. If real-world importance is added to the article, I'd be ok with keeping and significantly trimming it down. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Later today I can start doing some digging on getting resources. It should not be difficult to find reliable information on the mechs from microsoft considering how popular the series is still to date.Mcelite (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other series have lists like this, so why not Battletech? --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that this is a "List of X" from BattleTech in particular. The problem is that this article doesn't explain the real-world influence of each listed mech, or any of them for that matter. There is no threshold for including a mech in the list beyond "a primary souce has published anything whatsoever about it". The existence of similar lists isn't reason to keep. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joel castaneda

Hoax. No such person listed on the Arsenal Academy website, no sources. My db-hoax tag was removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yep, definitely a hoax. And even if it weren't, he still wouldn't pass WP:ATHLETE, nor would he pass WP:N. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no sign of him on the Arsenal website. Eldumpo (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The AfD participants unanimously agree that this player clearly meets WP:ATHLETE, since he is a member of both national and professional teams. The nomination was not based on established notability guidelines, and thus closed early. JamieS93 ^{Only You Can Prevent Drama} 23:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Thompson (soccer)

Non-notable John 03:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a member of the Vancouver Whitecaps meets the notability criteria for WP:ATHLETE. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played for the Canadian national football team. Jevansen (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some mistake surely, played for the national team....Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, played for national and two fully professional leagues, meets WP:ATHLETE in spades --Saalstin (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted, playing member of a national team is notable. Reso lute 22:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the !votes above. Iowateen (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NASL and a Canadian national team. What a bizarre nomination! Nfitz (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly meets notability guidelines for athletes. Edward321 (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 13:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep, passes WP:ATH by a long-way - played in fully-pro leagues and international level. Would it make sense to close this AfD as per the snowball clause? --Jimbo^[online] 13:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - a former professional AND an international? Clearly passes WP:ATHLETE, what a ridiculous nomination. Giant Snowman 13:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes WP:ATH. Don't understand non-notable claim in nom. Rlendog (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotourism: A Pro-Active Route to Recovery

I can't quite go with a speedy when an article has been around this long and edited by several, but I'm personally voting for G11 speedy deletion in this AfD. Rationale: read the article, it's short. - Dank (push to talk) 02:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious spam -- it's even written in the first-person singular -- and of the "several" who have edited, if you discount the bots, it's one making a single minor spelling correction, one adding a {{verify}} tag, one removing an outdated press release -- and the article creator writing in the first-person. --Calton | Talk 16:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. I can't bring an article to AfD and say "you have to vote G11", that would kind of undermine the point of AfD, but I personally believe this to be an easy call. If we get consensus, then we can speedy it and be done with it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, speedy delete for spam --Saalstin (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam....spam based on a WP:NEO at that. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tan | 39 05:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape Riots

Contested prod (well, not exactly, someone deleted the prod tag along with the rest of the article, and someone else figured that qualifies as a contested prod). List of incidents where groups of Runescape players disagreed with a change in the game. The only reference is the Runescape Wiki. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete Sulking players typing obscenities = sulking players typing obscenities, unless you're involved and kid yourself it's something more. Without reliable secondary sources this has no place on WP. Someone another 13:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-non notable web incident without any reliable sources KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 14:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Someone another..........and thanks for the laugh. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think about it, this kinda page can't have references because no one will right about it on the internet. So if you were there, then isn't that reliable enough? --24.40.134.221 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need mulitple souces with non trivual coverage that not related to the subject to meet WP:N. Comments of people involved is not enough.--76.66.191.154 (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Runescape if anyone thinks it's notable within a game e.g. player reaction to changes. 86.130.172.27 (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the bottom of the RS article (under player reaction or something) there's already a mention, with a 'citation needed' tag, therein lies the problem. Someone another 15:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let me ask you this. Why does this page need references? It's quite obvious that you won't find this type of information on the internet, because it is describing an event in a computer game. Would you expect to find that online somewhere? If so, then go give me a link. We should make this an exception just to once, to the rules of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs) 21:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, let me put it this way: The very fact that "you won't find this type of information on the internet" is reason enough to not have an article on this topic. In fact, it is the very reason why this article has been nominated for deletion in the first place. Wikipedia refuses to be a primary or secondary source about anything, so basically, any article here must be based on the kind of sources that, according to you, doesn't exist. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As for making an exception to policy just for this topic, the answer, of course, is no. However, there are several alternatives that you can consider. You could devote a MySpace page or a Facebook group to this topic. You could check whether what you want to write fits the Wikinews content guide. Those are just three options. You might find others, but it appears, at this point, that a Wikipedia article is currently not a viable option for coverage of this topic. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you people continue to enforce these rules, especially for an article that is well informed enough. Everyone in the world knows that Wikipedia is known for its lies already. Teachers at my school forbid students from using Wikipedia as a source b/c it has already been dubbed as "unreliable". In fact, I think that just a few months ago, there was a news article that was talking about Wikipedia's lies. My social studies teacher even said that Wikipedia once had Lincoln's killer's name wrong!

What you guys think your doing is trying to make Wikipedia seem a better source by enforcing these rules, when in reality you are really just making the people who love Wikipedia, (me), hate it. --Red Slayer 03:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

Saying that there's no point enforcing rules on Wikipedia because it already contains misleading information is like saying that you might as well be racist because other people are. It's like a warped version of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. On a separate note, we're not developing Wikipedia to entertain specific people but to create, as reliably as possible, an online encyclopaedia. I somehow can't see Encyclopædia Britannica deciding that any sort of sources are unnecessary as long as the people involved said it happened. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 07:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wholly unsourced original reasearch. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Suggest transwiki to Runescape wiki, where it probably belongs. As to Valkyrie Red's comment, the fact that Wikipedia is considered unreliable is something we work hard at fixing, and enforcing those rules, strictly, is one of the means to that end. MLauba (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolutely no evidence of notability. Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's easy, if it hasn't reliable sources and doesn't fit WP:N, then we can't have an article about it.--Megaman en m (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This took me a moment, but I just noticed that an IP editor removed four delete !votes without explanation. I've warned them on their talk page, but it's probably worth noting that the debate is actually larger than it appears. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As much as I hate the term, it is 'cruft'. Wikipedia would be a very different place if we had pages regarding complaints about every product/service/company/person. --Taelus (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, as stated above, an IP editor removed my comments here. I have re-added them above with the old time/date stamp. --Taelus (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Greg Tyler- Comparing Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica is like comparing a mentally-impaired person to Einstein. Wikipedia will never get as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica. --Red Slayer 22:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying to Mlauba- You can try, but you will fail. Wikipedia already ruined its reputation a while back and users like Greg Tyler thought that they were making Wikipedia better when in fact they were only making it worse. --Red Slayer 22:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

Comment Your opinions nonwithstanding, the future isn't set in stone. In the meantime, enforcing policies which prevent turning wikipedia into myspace or blogspot is a good way to restore its reputation bit by bit, even if it lessens your private enjoyment of the site.

That being said, allow me to assure you that if you ever mean to build a credible case against deletion for any article, petulantly dissmissing the efforts of everyone who works into changing the reality and perception of wikipedia is not the best way to go about it. MLauba (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the best "keep" rationales I've come across - Wikipedia is fatally flawed so we should not bother trying to improve it. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 08:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Mlauba- So you're saying that keeping one page without references will turn Wikipedia into a myspace page/blog post. I think that you'd better get a dictionary and look up the meaning of a blog, cause this sure as heck isn't a blog.

Replying to Greg Tyler- I'm confused. Are you with deleting this page or are you against deleting this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs) 15:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest we cut the snark here. Check out WP:NPA before you continue this senseless tit-for-tat game - and if you nonetheless do, take it to my talk page. You're weakening your case. MLauba (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Mlauba- I am sorry if I hurt your feelings Mlauba, but you are also doing an personal attack with that weakening your cause talk. Check out WP:NPA for more information on how to avoid this. And I don't see how I am weakening my cause, and I still fail to recognize what your cause is. Please do tell me what it is--Red Slayer 17:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sir, your point has repeatedly proved to be invalid, hence Mlauba was incorrect to say it was being weakened - there was nothing to weaken. The idea that Wikipedia is flawed with respect to certain articles is true. The idea that this means we should ignore policy to let something through which it seems nobody agrees with keeping is groundless and ludicrous. May I also point out that your continual defence of an article which isn't notable and has no reliable sources implies somewhat that you may be suffering from a conflict on interest. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Previous delete !vote was removed by an IP editor. I feel this is pretty snowball and conclusive, but the discussion's fairly lively, which always makes for interest. Sure, "don't feed them", but I've never really saw the fun side of that essay. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 21:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that can provide any notability for this. The Runescape Wiki is unreliable as it is self-published. Also per the snowball clause. MuZemike 00:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Greg Tyler's first comment- Thanks for calling me Sir, makes me feel important, but anyway, as I've said before, it is just one page. Why do we have to debate over one page. Will one page destroy the bases that hold Wikipedia? Will one page ruin all that we've worked for on Wikipedia? Will one page cause a civil war within Wikipedia? I think not--Red Slayer 01:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying to Greg Tyler's second comment- Again I fail to recognize who's side you're on--Red Slayer 01:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying to MuZemike- I was there! And if someone was there, then that makes it a primary source, not a secondary source. The only reason I used Runescape Wikia was because I never wrote about it, and, because of the rules of Wikipedia, I had to provide some sort of source--Red Slayer 01:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

Reliable secondary sources independent of the topic establish notability, not primary sources. Please read the verifiability policy. MuZemike 01:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Runescape Wikia is itself a primary source. What you need to provide is a secondary source, deemed reliable and at at least one step detached from the events. Which means, if a major newspaper uses the Runescape Wikia as a source, then Wikipedia may use the newspaper in question (not the wiki itself) as a source. As for your general argument that Wikipedia should make an exception for you, then, to be fair, it must make an exception for everybody. Might as well throw away its rules and abandon its primary purpose. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was also present at a 'riot', happily minding my own business stood at the grand exchange while some poor little darling marched up and down typing "Roit Riot Roit!!!", being followed by other little darlings in awe of this righteous act, the net effect of which is about the same as an elderly labrador farting in its sleep. It comes down to reliable sources, the only WP can ascertain whether these actions had any effect on anything in RS is if someone actually does that research and publishes it for use. Until that happens these things will have to remain mutual back-slapping exercises on fan sites, along with countless other examples of nada being made out as landmark events. Someone another 00:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- This isn't a place for this conversation, you either present a reason for deletion or a reason for it to be kept or leave. Please bring your conversations off wiki. Rgood erm ote 05:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with someoneanother here. Crafty (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable web incident not covered by reliable secondary sources. I also advise Valkyrie Red to keep a civil tongue in his mouth. What with this and his other activities he's likely to experience the sweet caress of a banhammer if he doesn't zip it. Ironholds (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, and most likely entirely unsourcable (in terms of reliable secondary sources). I think the snowball clause could be justifiably invoked here. Robofish (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete::The references first off are from another Wiki (something I'm quite sure has been frowned upon since forever) and second, the "riots" took place in a video game where the worst you could do is clog up the Internet traffic, unless this some how magically effects the real world and gains major attention from reputable sources, this article is useless and has no reason what so ever to be on Wikipedia. In addition I want to use WP:CRUFT as another reason for this to be deleted. Rgood erm ote 22:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cruft with no reliable sources or notability -Halo (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Restored because an IP removed it. Rgood erm ote 05:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Cartwright

Energetic self-promotion by a wannabe jazz diva (yes, she uses "diva" as an honorific) which, when the name-dropping is stripped away, adds up to nothing much. Calton | Talk 01:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is clearly promotional and needs heavy cleanup if it is to be kept. But those arguing to delete have not provided any evidence that she is not notable and do not show any evidence of the research that one is supposed to do before proposing an article for deletion, see WP:BEFORE. An assertion that a page is promotional or vain, not backed by any evidence, should not be given any weight in deletion discussions at all! Cazort (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. There's no such burden to prove non-notability -- how exactly do you prove a negative, anyways? -- and in fact the burden is precisely the opposite: those arguing for or adding entries are the ones who have to demonstrate notability for inclusion. --Calton | Talk 18:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE reads:

When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist.
When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy.

These guidelines, which I agree with wholeheartedly, very strongly support my comment. I want to clarify too, I am not asking to "prove" non-notability, I am simply asking you to explain how the article violates policy, rather than merely stating it does. Cazort (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those suggestions -- which don't even rise to the level of "guideline" -- aren't even close to having the slightest relevance to the correcting your misstatement regarding the absolute requirement of evidence for inclusion. I repeat, no one has to prove non-notability. --Calton | Talk 02:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if my remark came across as attacking you--that is not my intent. And to clarify again, I do not think anyone needs to "prove" non-notability (or notability)...making a recommendation based on intuition is fine, that's what AfD is all about. But the key here is to share the reasoning (and research) behind your intuition with other editors. This is crucial to maintaining a constructive atmosphere on AfD's. I made my comment because I was concerned that both the nomination and JuJube's comments are simply stating an opinion, without explaining how the article meets/violates policy...that's the relevance to what I cited in WP:BEFORE. If you had done research before nominating this article, it would have been helpful to share that with you (i.e. did you do any searches for sources, what did you find, why were the sources you found inadequate for establishing notability, etc.). If you do this ahead of time, you will find that editors will give more weight to your opinions and most of the AfD's you nominate go through a quick snowball delete. Cazort (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I find a single album of hers: [28] but it seems to be with a not-well-known label. She has released a songbook, but it is self-published through lulu.com. Searching for material on her is tricky because so many people share that name. But I have found some coverage, see this search: [29]. Is this enough to establish notability? I don't think so. But it's important to be thorough. Cazort (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local lounge singer that fails WP:ENT and WP:MUSICBIO.....and WP:TROUT her for calling herself a diva. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The language used is indeed promotional, but the subject is worthy of an article per WP:MUSIC. The correct action here is to rewrite, not delete. Owen× ☎ 08:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Changed to Delete per Cazort's findings. Owen× ☎ 13:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what part of WP:MUSIC you think this should be kept under? I'm not seeing enough coverages in reliable sourcese here. All I've found is one album on a little-known label, a self-published songbook, and various brief mentions of performances found in a news search. I'm not finding anything more significant, such as detailed reviews or articles or even sections of articles written about her in detail. Cazort (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"a self-published songbook"?! Amazon.com has 8 of her books for sale, 4 of them in stock. This doesn't seem to be some fly-by-night self-published nobody, but a well known and influential musician and educator. Owen× ☎ 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a very thorough check on Amazon.com and ALL of her books that I found are self-published. Trafford and lulu.com are both self-publishing outfits, you can easily verify that with a google search. Anyone with money can pay to have their own works published through such places, and thus, having any number of books published in that manner doesn't say anything about a person's notability. It's not enough to assert that someone is a "well-known and influential musician and educator"--this must be demonstrated in reliable sources. Find newspaper features, scholarly works, anything with some editorial integrity, that says this, or that provides biographical information or any kind of detailed coverage, and we can save the article! But I have expended considerable effort in searching for such sources and haven't found enough to establish notability--but if you have good sources, please by all means share them! I would like to save every article, it's just that some topics don't have enough coverage in reliable sources to allow writing of a quality article. Cazort (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you convinced me; changed to Delete. Good investigative work, Cazort! Owen× ☎ 13:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 04:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delmar Public Library

All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:CORP. Iowateen (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct and merge.......although the question is do we put it in Delmar, DE or Delmar MD? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article cites no reliable sources, and doesn't indicate its notability of the subject. Brian Reading (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this belongs in WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is meant to be a joke. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete as copyvio of their web site, [30] Articles that read this way almost always are.DGG (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. A brief search has thrown up only their own site, Yellow pages listing sites and the like, the library's own "MySpace" page, etc. If there is substantial independent coverage then the onus is on anyone wishing to keep the article to show it, but this has not been done. The article gives no sources at all, except the library's own web site. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added references. The article includes a history. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Added references": yes, but they are only references to the library's own site, the site of the local authority which runs the library, and a directory of libraries. None of them could by any stretch of the imagination be called independent coverage, let alone substantial independent coverage. Still no indication whatever of notability by the standards of Wikipedia's policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees Draft Picks

The article is written like a blog with personal opinion and no references. Since the draft occurs every year, it would be better to cover in articles on Yankees' seasons. BRMo (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —BRMo (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Completely unencyclopedic, reads like a blog (the Derek Jeter section says it all), appears to list their best picks which is WP:OR and obviously there are no WP:RS listed or out there really. Any draft coverage should be on the individual season if at all.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, the Jeter section has now been removed, here's the version with it, because otherwise I'll look like an idiot referencing a non-existent section.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I can't say anything constructive about this, so I won't say anything. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay I had a minute to collect thoughts. If the point of this article is to discuss how the Yankees allowed alot of good players to leave the organization by trading them for overpriced veterans (which is the best I can figure), it missed the mark. Omir Santos? Brandon Boggs? If anything, talk about Fred McGriff and Jay Buhner, those are the most widely known. That said, I think this talk should be incorporated into existing articles, and doesn't need its own article.--Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't fit any speedy deletion criteria, so regular deletion will have to do. The purpose to this article is really impossible to figure out. Reso lute 22:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Red Wing, Minnesota. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Wing Public Library

I can only find trivial mentions for this library. Fails WP:CORP. Iowateen (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to Red Wing, Minnesota. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with nominator, I only find trivial mentions (i.e. events held at the library, people associated with it). And there's not much to the current site. But the library's website itself, [31], being a noncontroversial government site, is a perfectly usableable reliable source to include a small amount of text on the library on the page on Red Wing, Minnesota, per Who then was a gentleman?'s suggestion. There's even a bit of history up there: [32]. Also as a comment, I think it's generally not good to put things like hours up, because those can change and then we are duplicating the main website--but things that don't change, like history, are fair game (and are much more encyclopedic!). Cazort (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct and merge to Red Wing, Minnesota. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discussion to redirect/create a dab should take place elsewhere at this point. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lokar

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Redirect is improper because the subject is non-notable. — X S G 01:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to dab ~~Redirect~~ ~~to List_of_Space_Ghost_Coast_to_Coast_characters#Lokar, where it is mentioned~~ based on comments by Abductive and a confirming search of WP; the dab list can be grown by editors. JJL (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast characters#Lokar; apathetic as to whether underlying article is deleted. --EEMIV (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list--anything else is , frankly, ridiculous. What's the point of trying to rescue articles like this except by redirecting them? A subject does not have to be notable to get a redirect. If the subject were notable it would get an article. That's the whole point of using redirect or merge as an alternative to deletion--it's an easy way to deal with things about which we have some information, but not enough for an article. DGG (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would be ridiculous would be the rat's nest of redirects and disambiguation pages that would result if we followed your philosophy to its logical extension (if non-notable subjects always received redirects back to their primary subjects). Redirects are used for plausible misspellings and when articles are renamed or have alternate names. There are actually a bunch more reasons, but the one you provide is not listed on WP:RCAT. Please note that even WP:RCAT refers to WP:BLP1E for establishing notability in cases like this. Fact of the matter is that Lokar, in and of itself, is non-notable and doesn't warrant a redirect. — X S G 04:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

did you just refer to BLP1E for a fictional character? And as for WP:RE, you're looking only at the top table. The second table give all the other uses including this, including"Too short for own article" and even "people known for one event" and gives the specific example of "list of fictional characters in a fictional universe." : When you quote rules, read them first. IUt says the exact opposite of your selective quote. DGG (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. People always seem to overlook the search bar as a perfectly functional tool--better, in this case. The evidence, as exemplified here; some of the people arguing for redirection must not have searched Wikipedia. If they did Google the term, they were mind-blind to the other uses, because of the (improper) existence of this article on the Lokar of Space Ghost and their urge to save all fictional articles. Abductive (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our organization is aimed at convenience. People should be able to type in a term in any search engine and find the nearest corresponding Wikipedia article. What is the actual reason you think a redirect is harmful? DGG (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you might have noticed, I always use statistics to draw my inferences. Contrast the lack of page views and Google hits for this term with the ones for "Cedric Diggory". Poor Cedric has no article, but his redirect gets at least 1400 page views a day. Cedric has about 1180 Google News hits. Yet we have no stand-alone article for him even though we certainly could. Why is this so? Because it make for a better encyclopedia, one presumes. I would never argue that the redirect for Cedric Diggory was inappropriate. But Lokar is a different matter. As I have pointed out, there is no interest in this term. If a person types Lokar into Wikipedia's search bar, they do get to the place they are going, and better than a disambig would, by click count, given that there are uses that will be overlooked by the disambig. Also, there is information in the fact that there is no article. The lack of an article tells the users that the topic is unimportant. As a librarian, I'm sure you can understand how important it is to know what is and what is not important. Do you see? Put another way, there is no way that a system of redirects and disambigs can compete with the human brain for navigating the list tossed up by a search engine. After all, the person typing in Lokar must have something in mind that they are looking for, right? Abductive (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I've reviewed the "Too short for own article" entry of WP:RCAT, which indicates that redirects for non-notables is acceptable. Damnit. — X S G 04:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly; the redirect should be to a list of minor entities. This presupposes a work that has enough reader demand for such a list, such as Supporting Harry Potter characters. Furthermore, the entity should be mentioned in the target article. Abductive (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect should be to wherever suitable, and if there is no list of minor entities ,it should be made. I do not see what postulated reader demand has to do with it: useful/not useful is not a argument here for articles. But if we talk about reader demand, it seems to me there would be demand for looking up any named character in a notable fiction, and this should be enabled directly. That's one half of the reasons redirects are for. (the other half is for name variations). DGG (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if useful/not useful has been decided for redirects. Am I right that the redirect has to be mentioned in the target? Does anybody have an estimate of the number of minor characters in all notable works of fiction? Abductive (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I previously had redirected this to mentioned target (and was undone by the article creator), so feel free to use this revision to save time if the consensus is to redirect. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator: There is no requirement for a subject to be independently notable to receive a redirect. Further, a redirect to to a location where character information is covered is both appropriate and helpful to our readers (and also discourages the recreation of non-notable articles). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are a number of other uses of the word Lokar in the world. Among them is Danilo Lokar, the surname of several other real people, an aftermarket automotive parts company, a character in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, a character in some book called Above the Veil, and the "Lokar bean" eaten by the Ferengi. None of these is important enough for a disambig, and their appearances in Wikipedia can be handled by the search bar. Page views of this article were in the single digits, suggesting that none of these uses are enough to justify a redirect or disambig. Abductive (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Abductive; redirect inappropriate; merge would be inappropriate, too, as there's more in yon list already. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine w/dab post-del. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate - per Abductive the term has several uses on Wikipedia; the fact that page draws few views is not a sufficient reason not to disambiguate. I will be happy to create the dab page myself if there is consensus to do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Abductive recommends delete, not disambiguate. — X S G 04:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was only trying to give credit where credit was do & "per abuductive" wasn't intended to imply I agreed with every word he said. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes he does, and for no reason that I can see. Redirects (in this case, as a disam) are a/cheap and b/ specifically provided for in the case of fictional characters by WP:RE 3.2 DGG (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is now explained at length above, rooted in my understanding of library sciences. Abductive (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per DGG. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Space Ghost Coast to Coast. Redirects don't necessarily have to be notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Doom

No reliable sources found to verify notability. A redirect is inappropriate because the subject is non-notable. — X S G 01:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Space Ghost Coast to Coast; apathetic as to whether underlying article is deleted. --EEMIV (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect and warn/block user (he's been warned about this for related articles just now) if he keeps undoing it --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and protect the redirect please! Why do people have to undo redirects for a one line article, and then of all the articles out there, flag this for rescue? -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don Kennedy

AfDs for this article:

No reliable sources found to verify notability. ProD declined. Note that the previous AfD for Don Kennedy was about a different subject.— X S G 00:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Restore redirect found in this revision - subject is NN but a link to the character he voiced doesn't hurt anything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

- I disagree with the premise that redirecting from a non-notable subject to something notable doesn't hurt anything. Doing so just doesn't scale. Under that premise, there would be no issues in my finding every bit role performed by anyone and establishing a link back to the Wikipedia article for that performance. The end result would be a rat's nest of names, pointing all over the place. That in and of itself isn't so bad, but when you have a name collision, you suddenly need a disambiguation page and not a redirect. The end result is just such a mess, that it's better practice to strike all non-notable subjects from Wikipedia and make sure that the subjects are searchable in their primary articles. — X S G 03:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I question the lack of notability based on the partial filmography that was added, however I'd like for these to be cited in some fashion, following which I suspect notability will be indisputable. — X S G 05:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and dig for the sources. I just added a partial filmography to Don Kennedy the actor (heck, someone had to try improving it)... and am a bit surprised. This fellow's career is older than I am. The common name "Don Kennedy", and that fact that most of his career predates the internet by a few decades, makes searching for sources about him quite difficult. Does this mean we should not give it our best shot? With some diggging, I found him in VO : tales and techniques of a voice-over actor ISBN 1581152493... so it makes me wonder... just how many of the Don Kennedys found in Google Books might be this fellow who began his career back in 1950? With just a bit of effort, I believe this article can be a worthy addition to Wikipedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Getting a little easier. In confirming some of his "other works", it seems he also hosted "The Popeye Club", a popular children's show in Atlanta on WSB-TV from 1956 to 1970.[33][34] Using that as an additional search term, I found him in g-news over a 20-year span [35]. Added some to the article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per excellent work by MichaelQ --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for lifetime achievement and influence. by Mark Dobbs, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Don is the host of Big Band Jump, a weekly syndicated radio show heard on over 200 stations, and now in its 17th year. Site URL is http://www.bigbandjump.com/bbjhome.html. Don also co-founded and owned WKLS FM radio station in Atlanta. He set up and served as president for both Georgia and Florida State News Networks.

For a brief look at Don's many achievements, please visit the Georgia radio Hall of Fame page: http://www.georgiaradiohalloffame.org/07%20CAI%20DON%20KENNEDY.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.253.4.10 (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it's my prerogative to withdraw the AfD nomination, which I intend to do presently. This guy is clearly notable, now. — X S G 19:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as Disney-hoax. ... discospinster _talk 00:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph 10

Removed misused G1 tag. Needs notability review (Gsearched and didn't find relevant searches) possibly hoax. Zoo Fari 00:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This a hoax which this user, in various forms, has been attempting to push onto this site for a long time now, at least a year. Said article has been deleted twice already. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, support G3 speedy deletion as hoax. No such show or actor listed at IMDB. Possible spoof of Ben 10.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I was going to tag this article hoax as well. Zoo Fari 00:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and block user. JuJube (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It's a hoax.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 20:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Template:Joseph 10 character box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) should be deleted along with this, as well as any related article the user may dream up by the time this closes. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Bhaktapur

A tin-pot beauty pageant associated with a city which has population not more than 61,000. Non notable heat of an event. Unreferenced. External Link leads to a site which is reported attack site by AVG and Google. The winners of the pageant have no major notability other than winning this competition. The major contributor seems to be on the mission to include every single beauty related competition taking place in Nepal without adhering established policy. Hitro 19:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable event. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:42, 5 July 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, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As the nom indicates, the only source cited is a reported attack site. The only Google News hits I could find were two general articles about beauty pageants in Nepal each of which mentioned, in a single sentence each time, that a Miss Bhaktapur pageant exists. That is not enough to indicate notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Keeping WP:OTHERSTUFF in mind, just for information I would like to bring deletion discussions related to similar articles into light. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Birgunj and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Pokhara. Hitro talk 14:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niyazi Kizilyurek

Fails the criteria set down in WP:PROF - books seem to be minor works, there is no evidence of significant impact, etc. Vizjim (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems to have a fair amount of news coverage, but I'll have to leave it to someone that knows Turkish to evaluate it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are also several hit for GScholar [36] and Gbooks. [37] Edward321 (talk) 23:04, 5 July 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 00:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article doesn't present any evidence that he passes WP:PROF, nor is it apparent from Google scholar and Google books. So the only thing we have left to go in is the news coverage mentioned by Bridger, but in the absence of a Turkish editor to interpret them for us they also don't help much. In the absence of evidence of notability, I think the default should be to assume he isn't notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add one point: Turkish Wikipedia has no article on this scholar [38] If he were significant, one would expect a Turkish Wiki article to appear first. This is particularly the case if the news articles that talk about him are all in the Turkish language (the English ones describe him as an assistant professor, i.e. below the threshold of WP:PROF.) Vizjim (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS gives only a handful of cites. Notability does not seem to be demonstrated by GS or more generally. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear enough DGG (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Jean-Baptiste

Doesn't meet WP:N Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Additionally page needed to be wikified, and no additional edits were made to reference the topic in over one month. Rmosler | ● 22:05, 27 June 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, 4 July 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, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing here that would pass WP:PROF or otherwise convince me of his notability. Too much of this is the sort of thing one would put on a resume to impress a potential employer but that is unlikely to interest a Wikipedia reader. And far too little of this can be supported by the listed sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any GS cites. Appears to have made litle impact on the world of formal scholarship. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SARGERUS (Film Series)

Non-notable film, made up one day by students. No references to verify notability (let alone existence) Fribbulus Xax (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You beat me to the AFD. Obvious delete due to non-notability. eaolson (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you beat me to placing the tag on the page, but I twinkled it here first... Fribbulus Xax (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasons noted above. It's badly written to boot. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 00:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only source that I can find is a Youtube video. Fails WP:NF. Iowateen (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability outside their high school. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sargerus Trilogy

Seems to be a non-notable series of student films. No coverage in the mainstream media, no significant awards listed. Polly (Parrot) 00:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. Also a dup article. eaolson (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicate and still un-notable film series. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn after article improvements, and no further arguments to delete have been raised over this article's lengthy stay on the AfD list. ~ mazca ^talk 23:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AlWasl Club

Article refers to Al Wasl FC. I don't even think a redirect would be good as this isn't a common typo. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The aim of adding a AlWasl Club article in addition to the Al Wasl FC article, is that the club is a Multi-Sports Club. Al Wasl FC is the article for the football club section of the club, while AlWasl Club is the main club's article with the history and overall details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaberm (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 June 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, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys can you take a look at the page and re-consider your decision? The page is a unique page that is not to be mixed with any other articles. --Jaberm (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No decision has been made, as nobody is even commenting--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:11, 5 July 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, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the club is a multi-sport club, a redirect to the football club would be inappropriate. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Over the time that this AFD has been up, the article has grown considerably. I now see the purpose of the article and also think the article should be kept.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infomigra European Project

Very poorly written, concerns a study which has yet to be published... Might be xenophobic and thus NPOV, but the article is written too poorly for me to understand. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-04t09:37z
Comment The following comment was left on the talk page by User:Jbcom at the same time they added an inappropiate hangon. Dpmuk (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a category for the article, the citation required and more internal links. Infomigra is an European Project on the basis of different studies of entities related with the migration and, as all the European Projects needs to be disseminated to transfer its results to another organisations

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, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional, non-notable. Abductive (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional' non-notable and unreferenced.Teapotgeorge^Talk 12:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Lalitpur

A tin-pot beauty pageant. Non notable heat of an event. Unreferenced. External Link leads to a site which is reported attack site by AVG and Google. The winners of the pageant has no major notability other than winning this competition. Hitro 19:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable event. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:43, 5 July 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, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Keeping WP:OTHERSTUFF in mind, just for information I would like to bring deletion discussions related to similar articles into light. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Birgunj and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Pokhara. Hitro talk 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The book was made into a movie. Therefore it passes Wikipedia:Notability (books) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mugger (novel)

May fail Wikipedia:Notability (books). magnius (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:10, 4 July 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, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and merge and rd to 87th Precinct. JJL (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect': to the series. This book is not notable on its own. Iowateen (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is to be made into a motion picture. This qualifies it under Wikipedia:Notability (books). Gosox5555 (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triage Entertainment

Appears to be made by a user with COI on the subject. The article may be improved on, but for now I'll submit this for deletion. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:01, 4 July 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, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't see substantial coverage in reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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